Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1537114

Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:48PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> @@ -693,8 +748,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		 * mutex_unlock() handing the lock off to us, do a trylock
>  		 * before testing the error conditions to make sure we pick up
>  		 * the handoff.
> +		 *
> +		 * For w/w locks, we always need to do this even if we're not
> +		 * currently the first waiter, because we may have been the
> +		 * first waiter during the unlock.
>  		 */
> -		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +		if (__mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>  			goto acquired;

So I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this. The point is that with the
.handoff logic it is very easy to accidentally allow:

	mutex_lock(&a);
	mutex_lock(&a);

And I'm not sure this doesn't make that happen for ww_mutexes. We get to
this __mutex_trylock() without first having blocked.


>  		/*
> @@ -716,7 +775,20 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>  		schedule_preempt_disabled();
>  
> -		if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
> +		if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Always re-check whether we're in first position. We
> +			 * don't want to spin if another task with a lower
> +			 * stamp has taken our position.
> +			 *
> +			 * We also may have to set the handoff flag again, if
> +			 * our position at the head was temporarily taken away.
> +			 */
> +			first = __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter);
> +
> +			if (first)
> +				__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> +		} else if (!first && __mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter)) {
>  			first = true;
>  			__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_HANDOFF);
>  		}

So the point is that !ww_ctx entries are 'skipped' during the insertion
and therefore, if one becomes first, it must stay first?

> @@ -728,7 +800,7 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
>  		 * or we must see its unlock and acquire.
>  		 */
>  		if ((first && mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx, true)) ||
> -		     __mutex_trylock(lock, first))
> +		     __mutex_trylock(lock, use_ww_ctx || first))
>  			break;
>  
>  		spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v2 00/11] locking/ww_mutex: Keep sorted wait list to avoid stampedes Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2016-12-01 17:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-06 16:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] locking/ww_mutex: Add waiters in stamp order Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-06 18:00 +0100
  [PATCH v2 07/11] locking/ww_mutex: Wake at most one waiter for back off when acquiring the lock Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 10/11] Documentation/locking/ww_mutex: Update the design document Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 09/11] locking/mutex: Initialize mutex_waiter::ww_ctx with poison when debugging Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner optimistic spin loop Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner  optimistic spin loop Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2016-12-01 15:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner  optimistic spin loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-06 16:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner  optimistic spin loop Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2016-12-06 17:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner  optimistic spin loop Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2016-12-06 19:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] locking/ww_mutex: Re-check ww->ctx in the inner  optimistic spin loop Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-06 20:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a  NULL context Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> - 2016-12-01 15:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a  NULL context Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-12-01 16:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a  NULL context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-01 17:30 +0100
  [PATCH v2 11/11] [rfc] locking/ww_mutex: Always spin optimistically for the first waiter Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 06/11] locking/ww_mutex: Notify waiters that have to back off while adding tasks to wait list Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100

csiph-web