[PATCH v2 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes
Thomas Hellstrom
thellstrom at vmware.com
Thu Jun 14 13:18:56 UTC 2018
On 06/14/2018 02:48 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi, Peter,
>
> On 06/14/2018 02:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:29:21AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> +static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct mutex *lock,
>>> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
>>> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx)
>>> +{
>>> + struct task_struct *owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
>>> +
>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
>>> +
>>> + if (owner && hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(hold_ctx, ww_ctx) &&
>>> + ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
>>> + hold_ctx->wounded = 1;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * wake_up_process() paired with set_current_state() inserts
>>> + * sufficient barriers to make sure @owner either sees it's
>>> + * wounded or has a wakeup pending to re-read the wounded
>>> + * state.
>>> + *
>>> + * The value of hold_ctx->wounded in
>>> + * __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp();
>>> + */
>>> + if (owner != current)
>>> + wake_up_process(owner);
>>> +
>>> + return true;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>> @@ -338,12 +377,18 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex
>>> *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
>>> * and keep spinning, or it will acquire wait_lock, add itself
>>> * to waiter list and sleep.
>>> */
>>> - smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
>>> + smp_mb(); /* See comments above and below. */
>>> /*
>>> - * Check if lock is contended, if not there is nobody to wake up
>>> + * Check if lock is contended, if not there is nobody to wake up.
>>> + * We can use list_empty() unlocked here since it only compares a
>>> + * list_head field pointer to the address of the list head
>>> + * itself, similarly to how list_empty() can be considered
>>> RCU-safe.
>>> + * The memory barrier above pairs with the memory barrier in
>>> + * __ww_mutex_add_waiter and makes sure lock->ctx is visible
>>> before
>>> + * we check for waiters.
>>> */
>>> - if (likely(!(atomic_long_read(&lock->base.owner) &
>>> MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS)))
>>> + if (likely(list_empty(&lock->base.wait_list)))
>>> return;
>> OK, so what happens is that if we see !empty list, we take wait_lock,
>> if we end up in __ww_mutex_wound() we must really have !empty wait-list.
>>
>> It can however still see !owner because __mutex_unlock_slowpath() can
>> clear the owner field. But if owner is set, it must stay valid because
>> FLAG_WAITERS and we're holding wait_lock.
>
> If __ww_mutex_wound() is called from ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath()
> owner is the current process so we can never see !owner. However if
> __ww_mutex_wound() is called from __ww_mutex_add_waiter() then the
> above is true.
Or actually it was intended to be true, but FLAG_WAITERS is set too
late. It needs to be moved to just after we actually add the waiter to
the list.
Then the hunk that replaces a FLAG_WAITERS read with a lockless
list_empty() can also be ditched.
/Thomas
>
>>
>> So the wake_up_process() is in fact safe.
>>
>> Let me put that in a comment.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list