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;
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 19:18:44 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 17/19] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64
Message-ID: <20190604171844.GF3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190520205918.22251-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190520205918.22251-18-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190604094537.GK3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <d03f319a-790c-3084-2908-76f44d3f41f5@redhat.com>
 <20190604170218.GE3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <28a6c7b5-c40e-1c89-03e2-688c1135f3b5@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28a6c7b5-c40e-1c89-03e2-688c1135f3b5@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:06:11PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/4/19 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 11:47:21AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 6/4/19 5:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:59:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>> With separate count and owner, there are timing windows where the two
> >>>> values are inconsistent. That can cause problem when trying to figure
> >>>> out the exact state of the rwsem. For instance, a RT task will stop
> >>>> optimistic spinning if the lock is acquired by a writer but the owner
> >>>> field isn't set yet. That can be solved by combining the count and
> >>>> owner together in a single atomic value.
> >>> I just realized we can use cmpxchg_double() here (where available of
> >>> course).
> >> Does the 2 doubles need to be 128-bit aligned to use cmpxchg_double()? I
> >> don't think we can guarantee that unless we explicitly set this alignment.
> > It does :/ and yes, we'd need to play games with __align(2*sizeof(long))
> > and such.
> 
> So do you want this as an option now as it will be x86 specific? Or we
> can do that as a follow-up if we want to.

x86, s390 and arm64 have cmpxchg_double().

I was going to have a look (but like I wrote, I'm pretty useless today
so i didn't actually get anywhere) at the exact race that's a problem
here and see if there's not another solution too.