Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1443379 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-14 13:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-07-16 03:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 13:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-07-15 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 03:20 +0200
| From | Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 13:40 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning |
| Message-ID | <rUN9M-G3-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
When the lock holder vCPU is racing with the queue head:
CPU 0 (lock holder) CPU 1 (queue head)
=================== =================
spin_lock(); spin_lock();
pv_kick_node(): pv_wait_head_or_lock():
if (!lp) {
lp = pv_hash(lock, pn);
xchg(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
}
WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
cmpxchg(&pn->state,
vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed);
WRITE_ONCE(l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
(void)pv_hash(lock, pn);
In this case, lock holder inserts the pv_node of queue head into the
hash table and set _Q_SLOW_VAL which can result in hash entry leak.
This patch avoids it by restoring/setting vcpu_hashed state after
failing adaptive locking spinning.
Reviewed-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
---
v2 -> v3:
* fix typo in patch description
v1 -> v2:
* adjust patch description
kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
index 21ede57..ac7d20b 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h
@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ pv_wait_head_or_lock(struct qspinlock *lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
goto gotlock;
}
}
- WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_halted);
+ WRITE_ONCE(pn->state, vcpu_hashed);
qstat_inc(qstat_pv_wait_head, true);
qstat_inc(qstat_pv_wait_again, waitcnt);
pv_wait(&l->locked, _Q_SLOW_VAL);
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-14 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning |
| Message-ID | <rUWmJ-6sk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1443379 |
2016-07-14 22:52 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>: [...] > As pv_kick_node() is called immediately after designating the next node as > the queue head, the chance of this racing is possible, but is not likely > unless the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time at that right > moment. This change does not do any harm though, so I am OK with that. > However, I do want you to add a comment about the possible race in the code > as it isn't that obvious or likely. How about something like: /* * If the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time, pv_kick_node will * advance its state and hash the lock, restore/set the vcpu_hashed state to * avoid the race. */ Btw, do you think patch title should be improved, what do you like? Regards, Wanpeng Li
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning |
| Message-ID | <rV5q2-3U6-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1443789 |
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:26:40AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > 2016-07-14 22:52 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>: > [...] > > As pv_kick_node() is called immediately after designating the next node as > > the queue head, the chance of this racing is possible, but is not likely > > unless the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time at that right > > moment. This change does not do any harm though, so I am OK with that. > > However, I do want you to add a comment about the possible race in the code > > as it isn't that obvious or likely. > > How about something like: > > /* > * If the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time, pv_kick_node will > * advance its state and hash the lock, restore/set the vcpu_hashed state to > * avoid the race. > */ So I'm not sure. Yes it was a bug, but its fairly 'obvious' it should be vcpu_hashed, we did after all hash the thing. > Btw, do you think patch title should be improved, what do you like? I changed it to: "locking/pvqspinlock: Fix double hash race"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 09:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning |
| Message-ID | <rV62K-47o-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1443979 |
2016-07-15 15:09 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:26:40AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-07-14 22:52 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>: >> [...] >> > As pv_kick_node() is called immediately after designating the next node as >> > the queue head, the chance of this racing is possible, but is not likely >> > unless the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time at that right >> > moment. This change does not do any harm though, so I am OK with that. >> > However, I do want you to add a comment about the possible race in the code >> > as it isn't that obvious or likely. >> >> How about something like: >> >> /* >> * If the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time, pv_kick_node will >> * advance its state and hash the lock, restore/set the vcpu_hashed state to >> * avoid the race. >> */ > > So I'm not sure. Yes it was a bug, but its fairly 'obvious' it should be I believe Waiman can give a better comments. :) > vcpu_hashed, we did after all hash the thing. > >> Btw, do you think patch title should be improved, what do you like? > > I changed it to: "locking/pvqspinlock: Fix double hash race" Thanks. :) Regards, Wanpeng Li
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 03:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] locking/pvqspinlock: restore/set vcpu_hashed state after failing adaptive locking spinning |
| Message-ID | <rVmqR-5Lg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1444009 |
2016-07-16 0:44 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>: > On 07/15/2016 03:45 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> 2016-07-15 15:09 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra<peterz@infradead.org>: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:26:40AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >>>> >>>> 2016-07-14 22:52 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long<waiman.long@hpe.com>: >>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> As pv_kick_node() is called immediately after designating the next node >>>>> as >>>>> the queue head, the chance of this racing is possible, but is not >>>>> likely >>>>> unless the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time at that >>>>> right >>>>> moment. This change does not do any harm though, so I am OK with that. >>>>> However, I do want you to add a comment about the possible race in the >>>>> code >>>>> as it isn't that obvious or likely. >>>> >>>> How about something like: >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * If the lock holder vCPU gets preempted for a long time, pv_kick_node >>>> will >>>> * advance its state and hash the lock, restore/set the vcpu_hashed >>>> state to >>>> * avoid the race. >>>> */ >>> >>> So I'm not sure. Yes it was a bug, but its fairly 'obvious' it should be >> >> I believe Waiman can give a better comments. :) > > > Yes, setting the state to vcpu_hashed is the more obvious choice. What I > said is not obvious is that there can be a race between the new lock holder > in pv_kick_node() and the new queue head trying to call pv_wait(). And it is > what I want to document it. Maybe something more graphical can help: > > /* > * lock holder vCPU queue head vCPU > * ---------------- --------------- > * node->locked = 1; > * <preemption> READ_ONCE(node->locked) > * ... pv_wait_head_or_lock(): > * SPIN_THRESHOLD loop; > * pv_hash(); > * lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL; > * node->state = vcpu_hashed; > * pv_kick_node(): > * cmpxchg(node->state, > * vcpu_halted, vcpu_hashed); > * lock->locked = _Q_SLOW_VAL; > * pv_hash(); > * > * With preemption at the right moment, it is possible that both the > * lock holder and queue head vCPUs can be racing to set node->state. > * Making sure the state is never set to vcpu_halted will prevent this > * racing from happening. > */ Thanks, I will fold this in my patch. :) Regards, Wanpeng Li
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web