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 v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count
 negative
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>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
References: <20190413172259.2740-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190413172259.2740-15-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190418135151.GB12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <d931916b-41f5-f12d-8c38-0cccbc00a301@redhat.com>
 <20190418144036.GE12232@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: <4cbd3c18-c9c0-56eb-4e01-ee355a69057a@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:54:19 -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: <20190418144036.GE12232@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 04/18/2019 10:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:08:28AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 04/18/2019 09:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>  inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>  {
>>>> +	long count = atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
>>>> +						   &sem->count);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (unlikely(count & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
>>>> +		rwsem_down_read_failed(sem, count);
>>>>  		DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(!is_rwsem_reader_owned(sem), sem);
>>>>  	} else {
>>>>  		rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
>>> *groan*, that is not provably correct. It is entirely possible to get
>>> enough fetch_add()s piled on top of one another to overflow regardless.
>>>
>>> Unlikely, yes, impossible, no.
>>>
>>> This makes me nervious as heck, I really don't want to ever have to
>>> debug something like that :-(
>> The number of fetch_add() that can pile up is limited by the number of
>> CPUs available in the system.
>> Yes, if you have a 32k processor system that have all the CPUs trying
>> to acquire the same read-lock, we will have a problem.
> Having more CPUs than that is not impossible these days.
>

Having more than 32k CPUs contending for the same cacheline will be
horribly slow.

>> Or as Linus had said that if we could have tasks kept
>> preempted right after doing the fetch_add with newly scheduled tasks
>> doing the fetch_add at the same lock again, we could have overflow with
>> less CPUs.
> That.
>
>> How about disabling preemption before fetch_all and re-enable
>> it afterward to address the latter concern? 
> Performance might be an issue, look at what preempt_disable() +
> preempt_enable() generate for ARM64 for example. That's not particularly
> pretty.

That is just for the preempt kernel. Right? Thinking about it some more,
the above scenario is less likely to happen for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
kernel and the preempt_disable cost will be lower. A preempt RT kernel
is less likely to run on system with many CPUs anyway. We could make
that a conifg option as well in a follow-on patch and let the
distributors decide.

>> I have no solution for the first case, though.
> A cmpxchg() loop can fix this, but that again has performance
> implications like you mentioned a while back.

Exactly.

Cheers,
Longman