#
45f67f30 |
|
08-Sep-2023 |
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
locking/rtmutex: Add a lockdep assert to catch potential nested blocking There used to be a BUG_ON(current->pi_blocked_on) in the lock acquisition functions, but that vanished in one of the rtmutex overhauls. Bring it back in form of a lockdep assert to catch code paths which take rtmutex based locks with current::pi_blocked_on != NULL. Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-7-bigeasy@linutronix.de
|
#
d14f9e93 |
|
08-Sep-2023 |
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
locking/rtmutex: Use rt_mutex specific scheduler helpers Have rt_mutex use the rt_mutex specific scheduler helpers to avoid recursion vs rtlock on the PI state. [[ peterz: adapted to new names ]] Reported-by: Crystal Wood <swood@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230908162254.999499-6-bigeasy@linutronix.de
|
#
286deb7e |
|
21-Mar-2023 |
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> |
locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphore and rwlock_t locks are unfair to writers. Readers can indefinitely acquire the lock unless the writer fully acquired the lock, which might never happen if there is always a reader in the critical section owning the lock. Mel Gorman reported that since LTP-20220121 the dio_truncate test case went from having 1 reader to having 16 readers and that number of readers is sufficient to prevent the down_write ever succeeding while readers exist. Eventually the test is killed after 30 minutes as a failure. Mel proposed a timeout to limit how long a writer can be blocked until the reader is forced into the slowpath. Thomas argued that there is no added value by providing this timeout. From a PREEMPT_RT point of view, there are no critical rw_semaphore or rwlock_t locks left where the reader must be preferred. Mitigate indefinite writer starvation by forcing the READER into the slowpath once the WRITER attempts to acquire the lock. Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/877cwbq4cq.ffs@tglx Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230321161140.HMcQEhHb@linutronix.de Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
#
ee042be1 |
|
22-Mar-2022 |
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> |
locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path Adding the lock contention tracepoints in various lock function slow paths. Note that each arch can define spinlock differently, I only added it only to the generic qspinlock for now. Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220322185709.141236-3-namhyung@kernel.org
|
#
c78416d1 |
|
19-Sep-2021 |
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> |
locking/rwbase: Optimize rwbase_read_trylock Instead of a full barrier around the Rmw insn, micro-optimize for weakly ordered archs such that we only provide the required ACQUIRE semantics when taking the read lock. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210920052031.54220-2-dave@stgolabs.net
|
#
9321f815 |
|
28-Sep-2021 |
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
rtmutex: Wake up the waiters lockless while dropping the read lock. The rw_semaphore and rwlock_t implementation both wake the waiter while holding the rt_mutex_base::wait_lock acquired. This can be optimized by waking the waiter lockless outside of the locked section to avoid a needless contention on the rt_mutex_base::wait_lock lock. Extend rt_mutex_wake_q_add() to also accept task and state and use it in __rwbase_read_unlock(). Suggested-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210928150006.597310-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de
|
#
81121524 |
|
08-Sep-2021 |
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> |
locking/rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for fastpath reader Readers of rwbase can lock and unlock without taking any inner lock, if that happens, we need the ordering provided by atomic operations to satisfy the ordering semantics of lock/unlock. Without that, considering the follow case: { X = 0 initially } CPU 0 CPU 1 ===== ===== rt_write_lock(); X = 1 rt_write_unlock(): atomic_add(READER_BIAS - WRITER_BIAS, ->readers); // ->readers is READER_BIAS. rt_read_lock(): if ((r = atomic_read(->readers)) < 0) // True atomic_try_cmpxchg(->readers, r, r + 1); // succeed. <acquire the read lock via fast path> r1 = X; // r1 may be 0, because nothing prevent the reordering // of "X=1" and atomic_add() on CPU 1. Therefore audit every usage of atomic operations that may happen in a fast path, and add necessary barriers. Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.953991276@infradead.org
|
#
616be87e |
|
08-Sep-2021 |
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
locking/rwbase: Extract __rwbase_write_trylock() The code in rwbase_write_lock() is a little non-obvious vs the read+set 'trylock', extract the sequence into a helper function to clarify the code. This also provides a single site to fix fast-path ordering. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YUCq3L+u44NDieEJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
|
#
7687201e |
|
08-Sep-2021 |
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
locking/rwbase: Properly match set_and_save_state() to restore_state() Noticed while looking at the readers race. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.828203010@infradead.org
|
#
943f0edb |
|
15-Aug-2021 |
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
locking/rt: Add base code for RT rw_semaphore and rwlock On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphores and rwlocks are substituted with an rtmutex and a reader count. The implementation is writer unfair, as it is not feasible to do priority inheritance on multiple readers, but experience has shown that real-time workloads are not the typical workloads which are sensitive to writer starvation. The inner workings of rw_semaphores and rwlocks on RT are almost identical except for the task state and signal handling. rw_semaphores are not state preserving over a contention, they are expected to enter and leave with state == TASK_RUNNING. rwlocks have a mechanism to preserve the state of the task at entry and restore it after unblocking taking potential non-lock related wakeups into account. rw_semaphores can also be subject to signal handling interrupting a blocked state, while rwlocks ignore signals. To avoid code duplication, provide a shared implementation which takes the small difference vs. state and signals into account. The code is included into the relevant rw_semaphore/rwlock base code and compiled for each use case separately. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210815211302.957920571@linutronix.de
|