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:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
References: <4cbd3c18-c9c0-56eb-4e01-ee355a69057a@redhat.com>
 <20190419102647.GP7905@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419120207.GO4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419130304.GV14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419131522.GW14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <57620139-92a3-4a21-56bd-5d6fff23214f@redhat.com>
 <7b1bfc26-6e90-bd65-ab46-08413acd80e9@redhat.com>
 <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=whnQJ9YDrkcKteNSACMJxzw1bL0RPfGQsey_9Nm7b8mnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4f62d7f2-e5f6-500e-3e70-b1d1978f7140@redhat.com>
 <20190424070959.GE4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <51589ac0-3e1f-040e-02bf-b6de77cbda1d@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:49:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190424070959.GE4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 4/24/19 3:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> That is true in general, but doing preempt_disable/enable across
>> function boundary is ugly and prone to further problems down the road.
> We do worse things in this code, and the thing Linus proposes is
> actually quite simple, something like so:
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -912,7 +904,7 @@ rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semap
>  			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>  			break;
>  		}
> -		schedule();
> +		schedule_preempt_disabled();
>  		lockevent_inc(rwsem_sleep_reader);
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1121,6 +1113,7 @@ static struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_downgr
>   */
>  inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	if (unlikely(atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
>  			&sem->count) & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
>  		rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> @@ -1129,10 +1122,12 @@ inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaph
>  	} else {
>  		rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
>  	}
> +	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  
>  static inline int __down_read_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	if (unlikely(atomic_long_fetch_add_acquire(RWSEM_READER_BIAS,
>  			&sem->count) & RWSEM_READ_FAILED_MASK)) {
>  		if (IS_ERR(rwsem_down_read_slowpath(sem, TASK_KILLABLE)))
> @@ -1142,6 +1137,7 @@ static inline int __down_read_killable(s
>  	} else {
>  		rwsem_set_reader_owned(sem);
>  	}
> +	preempt_enable();
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  

Making that change will help the slowpath to has less preemption points.
For an uncontended rwsem, this offers no real benefit. Adding
preempt_disable() is more complicated than I originally thought.

Maybe we are too paranoid about the possibility of a large number of
preemptions happening just at the right moment. If p is the probably of
a preemption in the middle of the inc-check-dec sequence, which I have
already moved as close to each other as possible. We are talking a
probability of p^32768. Since p will be really small, the compound
probability will be infinitesimally small.

So I would like to not do preemption now for the current patchset. We
can restart the discussion later on if there is a real concern that it
may actually happen. Please let me know if you still want to add
preempt_disable() for the read lock.

Cheers,
Longman