Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 02/12] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to
 prevent lock starvation
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190405192115.17416-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190405192115.17416-3-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190410184429.GX4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=longman@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsFNBFgsZGsBEAC3l/RVYISY3M0SznCZOv8aWc/bsAgif1H8h0WPDrHnwt1jfFTB26EzhRea
 XQKAJiZbjnTotxXq1JVaWxJcNJL7crruYeFdv7WUJqJzFgHnNM/upZuGsDIJHyqBHWK5X9ZO
 jRyfqV/i3Ll7VIZobcRLbTfEJgyLTAHn2Ipcpt8mRg2cck2sC9+RMi45Epweu7pKjfrF8JUY
 r71uif2ThpN8vGpn+FKbERFt4hW2dV/3awVckxxHXNrQYIB3I/G6mUdEZ9yrVrAfLw5M3fVU
 CRnC6fbroC6/ztD40lyTQWbCqGERVEwHFYYoxrcGa8AzMXN9CN7bleHmKZrGxDFWbg4877zX
 0YaLRypme4K0ULbnNVRQcSZ9UalTvAzjpyWnlnXCLnFjzhV7qsjozloLTkZjyHimSc3yllH7
 VvP/lGHnqUk7xDymgRHNNn0wWPuOpR97J/r7V1mSMZlni/FVTQTRu87aQRYu3nKhcNJ47TGY
 evz/U0ltaZEU41t7WGBnC7RlxYtdXziEn5fC8b1JfqiP0OJVQfdIMVIbEw1turVouTovUA39
 Qqa6Pd1oYTw+Bdm1tkx7di73qB3x4pJoC8ZRfEmPqSpmu42sijWSBUgYJwsziTW2SBi4hRjU
 h/Tm0NuU1/R1bgv/EzoXjgOM4ZlSu6Pv7ICpELdWSrvkXJIuIwARAQABzR9Mb25nbWFuIExv
 bmcgPGxsb25nQHJlZGhhdC5jb20+wsF/BBMBAgApBQJYLGRrAhsjBQkJZgGABwsJCAcDAgEG
 FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQbjBXZE7vHeYwBA//ZYxi4I/4KVrqc6oodVfwPnOVxvyY
 oKZGPXZXAa3swtPGmRFc8kGyIMZpVTqGJYGD9ZDezxpWIkVQDnKM9zw/qGarUVKzElGHcuFN
 ddtwX64yxDhA+3Og8MTy8+8ZucM4oNsbM9Dx171bFnHjWSka8o6qhK5siBAf9WXcPNogUk4S
 fMNYKxexcUayv750GK5E8RouG0DrjtIMYVJwu+p3X1bRHHDoieVfE1i380YydPd7mXa7FrRl
 7unTlrxUyJSiBc83HgKCdFC8+ggmRVisbs+1clMsK++ehz08dmGlbQD8Fv2VK5KR2+QXYLU0
 rRQjXk/gJ8wcMasuUcywnj8dqqO3kIS1EfshrfR/xCNSREcv2fwHvfJjprpoE9tiL1qP7Jrq
 4tUYazErOEQJcE8Qm3fioh40w8YrGGYEGNA4do/jaHXm1iB9rShXE2jnmy3ttdAh3M8W2OMK
 4B/Rlr+Awr2NlVdvEF7iL70kO+aZeOu20Lq6mx4Kvq/WyjZg8g+vYGCExZ7sd8xpncBSl7b3
 99AIyT55HaJjrs5F3Rl8dAklaDyzXviwcxs+gSYvRCr6AMzevmfWbAILN9i1ZkfbnqVdpaag
 QmWlmPuKzqKhJP+OMYSgYnpd/vu5FBbc+eXpuhydKqtUVOWjtp5hAERNnSpD87i1TilshFQm
 TFxHDzbOwU0EWCxkawEQALAcdzzKsZbcdSi1kgjfce9AMjyxkkZxcGc6Rhwvt78d66qIFK9D
 Y9wfcZBpuFY/AcKEqjTo4FZ5LCa7/dXNwOXOdB1Jfp54OFUqiYUJFymFKInHQYlmoES9EJEU
 yy+2ipzy5yGbLh3ZqAXyZCTmUKBU7oz/waN7ynEP0S0DqdWgJnpEiFjFN4/ovf9uveUnjzB6
 lzd0BDckLU4dL7aqe2ROIHyG3zaBMuPo66pN3njEr7IcyAL6aK/IyRrwLXoxLMQW7YQmFPSw
 drATP3WO0x8UGaXlGMVcaeUBMJlqTyN4Swr2BbqBcEGAMPjFCm6MjAPv68h5hEoB9zvIg+fq
 M1/Gs4D8H8kUjOEOYtmVQ5RZQschPJle95BzNwE3Y48ZH5zewgU7ByVJKSgJ9HDhwX8Ryuia
 79r86qZeFjXOUXZjjWdFDKl5vaiRbNWCpuSG1R1Tm8o/rd2NZ6l8LgcK9UcpWorrPknbE/pm
 MUeZ2d3ss5G5Vbb0bYVFRtYQiCCfHAQHO6uNtA9IztkuMpMRQDUiDoApHwYUY5Dqasu4ZDJk
 bZ8lC6qc2NXauOWMDw43z9He7k6LnYm/evcD+0+YebxNsorEiWDgIW8Q/E+h6RMS9kW3Rv1N
 qd2nFfiC8+p9I/KLcbV33tMhF1+dOgyiL4bcYeR351pnyXBPA66ldNWvABEBAAHCwWUEGAEC
 AA8FAlgsZGsCGwwFCQlmAYAACgkQbjBXZE7vHeYxSQ/+PnnPrOkKHDHQew8Pq9w2RAOO8gMg
 9Ty4L54CsTf21Mqc6GXj6LN3WbQta7CVA0bKeq0+WnmsZ9jkTNh8lJp0/RnZkSUsDT9Tza9r
 GB0svZnBJMFJgSMfmwa3cBttCh+vqDV3ZIVSG54nPmGfUQMFPlDHccjWIvTvyY3a9SLeamaR
 jOGye8MQAlAD40fTWK2no6L1b8abGtziTkNh68zfu3wjQkXk4kA4zHroE61PpS3oMD4AyI9L
 7A4Zv0Cvs2MhYQ4Qbbmafr+NOhzuunm5CoaRi+762+c508TqgRqH8W1htZCzab0pXHRfywtv
 0P+BMT7vN2uMBdhr8c0b/hoGqBTenOmFt71tAyyGcPgI3f7DUxy+cv3GzenWjrvf3uFpxYx4
 yFQkUcu06wa61nCdxXU/BWFItryAGGdh2fFXnIYP8NZfdA+zmpymJXDQeMsAEHS0BLTVQ3+M
 7W5Ak8p9V+bFMtteBgoM23bskH6mgOAw6Cj/USW4cAJ8b++9zE0/4Bv4iaY5bcsL+h7TqQBH
 Lk1eByJeVooUa/mqa2UdVJalc8B9NrAnLiyRsg72Nurwzvknv7anSgIkL+doXDaG21DgCYTD
 wGA5uquIgb8p3/ENgYpDPrsZ72CxVC2NEJjJwwnRBStjJOGQX4lV1uhN1XsZjBbRHdKF2W9g
 weim8xU=
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <bc06ff44-4dd0-f49c-c938-5f6c514e9596@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:25:16 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190410184429.GX4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/10/2019 02:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:21:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Because of writer lock stealing, it is possible that a constant
>> stream of incoming writers will cause a waiting writer or reader to
>> wait indefinitely leading to lock starvation.
>>
>> The mutex code has a lock handoff mechanism to prevent lock starvation.
>> This patch implements a similar lock handoff mechanism to disable
>> lock stealing and force lock handoff to the first waiter in the queue
>> after at least a 5ms waiting period. The waiting period is used to
>> avoid discouraging lock stealing too much to affect performance.
> I would say the handoff it not at all similar to the mutex code. It is
> in fact radically different.
>

I mean they are similar in concept. Of course, the implementations are
quite different.

>> @@ -131,6 +138,15 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>>  		adjustment = RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
>>  		oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
>>  		if (unlikely(oldcount & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK)) {
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Initiate handoff to reader, if applicable.
>> +			 */
>> +			if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) &&
>> +			    time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
>> +				adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
>> +				lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
>> +			}
>> +
>>  			atomic_long_sub(adjustment, &sem->count);
>>  			return;
>>  		}
> That confuses the heck out of me...
>
> The above seems to rely on __rwsem_mark_wake() to be fully serialized
> (and it is, by ->wait_lock, but that isn't spelled out anywhere) such
> that we don't get double increment of FLAG_HANDOFF.
>
> So there is NO __rwsem_mark_wake() vs __wesem_mark_wake() race like:
>
>   CPU0					CPU1
>
>   oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count)
>
> 					oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count)
>
>   if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF))
>     adjustment -= HANDOFF;
>
> 					if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF))
> 					  adjustment -= HANDOFF;
>   atomic_long_sub(adjustment)
> 					atomic_long_sub(adjustment)
>
>
> *whoops* double negative decrement of HANDOFF (aka double increment).

Yes, __rwsem_mark_wake() is always called with wait_lock held. I can add
a lockdep_assert() statement to clarify this point.

>
> However there is another site that fiddles with the HANDOFF bit, namely
> __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(), and that does:
>
> +                               atomic_long_or(RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF, &sem->count);
>
> _OUTSIDE_ of ->wait_lock, which would yield:
>
>   CPU0					CPU1
>
>   oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count)
>
> 					atomic_long_or(HANDOFF)
>
>   if (!(oldcount & HANDOFF))
>     adjustment -= HANDOFF;
>
>   atomic_long_sub(adjustment)
>
> *whoops*, incremented HANDOFF on HANDOFF.
>
>
> And there's not a comment in sight that would elucidate if this is
> possible or not.
>

A writer can only set the handoff bit if it is the first waiter in the
queue. If it is the first waiter, a racing __rwsem_mark_wake() will see
that the first waiter is a writer and so won't go into the reader path.
I know I something don't spell out all the conditions that may look
obvious to me but not to others. I will elaborate more in comments.

> Also:
>
> +                               atomic_long_or(RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF, &sem->count);
> +                               first++;
> +
> +                               /*
> +                                * Make sure the handoff bit is seen by
> +                                * others before proceeding.
> +                                */
> +                               smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> That comment is utter nonsense. smp_mb() doesn't (and cannot) 'make
> visible'. There needs to be order between two memops on both sides.
>
I kind of add that for safety. I will take some time to rethink if it is
really necessary.

Cheers,
Longman