Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
大约 1 年 前同步成功

通知 5
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 08 6月, 2016 2 次提交
  3. 03 6月, 2016 7 次提交
    • T
      percpu, locking: Revert ("percpu: Replace smp_read_barrier_depends() with lockless_dereference()") · ed8ebd1d
      由 Tejun Heo 提交于 
      lockless_dereference() is planned to grow a sanity check to ensure
that the input parameter is a pointer.  __ref_is_percpu() passes in an
unsinged long value which is a combination of a pointer and a flag.
While it can be casted to a pointer lvalue, the casting looks messy
and it's a special case anyway.  Let's revert back to open-coding
READ_ONCE() and explicit barrier.

This doesn't cause any functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NTejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: kernel-team@fb.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160522185040.GA23664@p183.telecom.bySigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      ed8ebd1d
    • J
      locking/mutex: Set and clear owner using WRITE_ONCE() · 6e281474
      由 Jason Low 提交于 
      The mutex owner can get read and written to locklessly.
Use WRITE_ONCE when setting and clearing the owner field
in order to avoid optimizations such as store tearing. This
avoids situations where the owner field gets written to with
multiple stores and another thread could concurrently read
and use a partially written owner value.
Signed-off-by: NJason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: NDavidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Acked-by: NWaiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>
Cc: Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463782776.2479.9.camel@j-VirtualBoxSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      6e281474
    • J
      locking/rwsem: Optimize write lock by reducing operations in slowpath · c0fcb6c2
      由 Jason Low 提交于 
      When acquiring the rwsem write lock in the slowpath, we first try
to set count to RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS. When that is successful,
we then atomically add the RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS in cases where
there are other tasks on the wait list. This causes write lock
operations to often issue multiple atomic operations.

We can instead make the list_is_singular() check first, and then
set the count accordingly, so that we issue at most 1 atomic
operation when acquiring the write lock and reduce unnecessary
cacheline contention.
Signed-off-by: NJason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Acked-by: NDavidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@hpe.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463445486-16078-2-git-send-email-jason.low2@hpe.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      c0fcb6c2
    • D
      locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task · e3851390
      由 Davidlohr Bueso 提交于 
      Readers that are awoken will expect a nil ->task indicating
that a wakeup has occurred. Because of the way readers are
implemented, there's a small chance that the waiter will never
block in the slowpath (rwsem_down_read_failed), and therefore
requires some form of reference counting to avoid the following
scenario:

rwsem_down_read_failed()		rwsem_wake()
  get_task_struct();
  spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
  list_add_tail(&waiter.list)
  spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
					  raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
					  __rwsem_do_wake()
  while (1) {
    set_task_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
					    waiter->task = NULL
    if (!waiter.task) // true
      break;
    schedule() // never reached

   __set_task_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 do_exit();
					    wake_up_process(tsk); // boom

... and therefore race with do_exit() when the caller returns.

There is also a mismatch between the smp_mb() and its documentation,
in that the serialization is done between reading the task and the
nil store. Furthermore, in addition to having the overlapping of
loads and stores to waiter->task guaranteed to be ordered within
that CPU, both wake_up_process() originally and now wake_q_add()
already imply barriers upon successful calls, which serves the
comment.

Now, as an alternative to perhaps inverting the checks in the blocker
side (which has its own penalty in that schedule is unavoidable),
with lockless wakeups this situation is naturally addressed and we
can just use the refcount held by wake_q_add(), instead doing so
explicitly. Of course, we must guarantee that the nil store is done
as the _last_ operation in that the task must already be marked for
deletion to not fall into the race above. Spurious wakeups are also
handled transparently in that the task's reference is only removed
when wake_up_q() is actually called _after_ the nil store.
Signed-off-by: NDavidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-3-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      e3851390
    • D
      locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s) · 133e89ef
      由 Davidlohr Bueso 提交于 
      As wake_qs gain users, we can teach rwsems about them such that
waiters can be awoken without the wait_lock. This is for both
readers and writer, the former being the most ideal candidate
as we can batch the wakeups shortening the critical region that
much more -- ie writer task blocking a bunch of tasks waiting to
service page-faults (mmap_sem readers).

In general applying wake_qs to rwsem (xadd) is not difficult as
the wait_lock is intended to be released soon _anyways_, with
the exception of when a writer slowpath will proactively wakeup
any queued readers if it sees that the lock is owned by a reader,
in which we simply do the wakeups with the lock held (see comment
in __rwsem_down_write_failed_common()).

Similar to other locking primitives, delaying the waiter being
awoken does allow, at least in theory, the lock to be stolen in
the case of writers, however no harm was seen in this (in fact
lock stealing tends to be a _good_ thing in most workloads), and
this is a tiny window anyways.

Some page-fault (pft) and mmap_sem intensive benchmarks show some
pretty constant reduction in systime (by up to ~8 and ~10%) on a
2-socket, 12 core AMD box. In addition, on an 8-core Westmere doing
page allocations (page_test)

aim9:
	 4.6-rc6				4.6-rc6
						rwsemv2
Min      page_test   378167.89 (  0.00%)   382613.33 (  1.18%)
Min      exec_test      499.00 (  0.00%)      502.67 (  0.74%)
Min      fork_test     3395.47 (  0.00%)     3537.64 (  4.19%)
Hmean    page_test   395433.06 (  0.00%)   414693.68 (  4.87%)
Hmean    exec_test      499.67 (  0.00%)      505.30 (  1.13%)
Hmean    fork_test     3504.22 (  0.00%)     3594.95 (  2.59%)
Stddev   page_test    17426.57 (  0.00%)    26649.92 (-52.93%)
Stddev   exec_test        0.47 (  0.00%)        1.41 (-199.05%)
Stddev   fork_test       63.74 (  0.00%)       32.59 ( 48.86%)
Max      page_test   429873.33 (  0.00%)   456960.00 (  6.30%)
Max      exec_test      500.33 (  0.00%)      507.66 (  1.47%)
Max      fork_test     3653.33 (  0.00%)     3650.90 ( -0.07%)

	     4.6-rc6     4.6-rc6
			 rwsemv2
User            1.12        0.04
System          0.23        0.04
Elapsed       727.27      721.98
Signed-off-by: NDavidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com
Cc: dave@stgolabs.net
Cc: jason.low2@hp.com
Cc: peter@hurleysoftware.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1463165787-25937-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      133e89ef
    • C
      locking/ww_mutex: Report recursive ww_mutex locking early · 0422e83d
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      Recursive locking for ww_mutexes was originally conceived as an
exception. However, it is heavily used by the DRM atomic modesetting
code. Currently, the recursive deadlock is checked after we have queued
up for a busy-spin and as we never release the lock, we spin until
kicked, whereupon the deadlock is discovered and reported.

A simple solution for the now common problem is to move the recursive
deadlock discovery to the first action when taking the ww_mutex.
Suggested-by: NMaarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: NMaarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1464293297-19777-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.ukSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      0422e83d
    • P
      locking/seqcount: Re-fix raw_read_seqcount_latch() · 55eed755
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Commit 50755bc1 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()") broke
raw_read_seqcount_latch().

If you look at the comment that was modified; the thing that changes is
the seq count, not the latch pointer.

 * void latch_modify(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
 * {
 *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the last data[1] update is visible
 *	latch->seq++;
 *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
 *
 *	modify(latch->data[0], ...);
 *
 *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the data[0] update is visible
 *	latch->seq++;
 *	smp_wmb();	<- Ensure that the seqcount update is visible
 *
 *	modify(latch->data[1], ...);
 * }
 *
 * The query will have a form like:
 *
 * struct entry *latch_query(struct latch_struct *latch, ...)
 * {
 *	struct entry *entry;
 *	unsigned seq, idx;
 *
 *	do {
 *		seq = lockless_dereference(latch->seq);

So here we have:

		seq = READ_ONCE(latch->seq);
		smp_read_barrier_depends();

Which is exactly what we want; the new code:

		seq = ({ p = READ_ONCE(latch);
			 smp_read_barrier_depends(); p })->seq;

is just wrong; because it looses the volatile read on seq, which can now
be torn or worse 'optimized'. And the read_depend barrier is also placed
wrong, we want it after the load of seq, to match the above data[]
up-to-date wmb()s.

Such that when we dereference latch->data[] below, we're guaranteed to
observe the right data.

 *
 *		idx = seq & 0x01;
 *		entry = data_query(latch->data[idx], ...);
 *
 *		smp_rmb();
 *	} while (seq != latch->seq);
 *
 *	return entry;
 * }

So yes, not passing a pointer is not pretty, but the code was correct,
and isn't anymore now.

Change to explicit READ_ONCE()+smp_read_barrier_depends() to avoid
confusion and allow strict lockless_dereference() checking.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Fixes: 50755bc1 ("seqlock: fix raw_read_seqcount_latch()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160527111117.GL3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.netSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      55eed755
  5. 02 6月, 2016 2 次提交
  7. 01 6月, 2016 23 次提交
  9. 31 5月, 2016 5 次提交
  11. 30 5月, 2016 1 次提交