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
rt_mutex_wake_q_add() needs to need to distiguish between sleeping
locks (TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT) and normal locks which use TASK_NORMAL to use
the proper wake mechanism.
Instead of checking for != TASK_NORMAL make it more robust and check
explicit for TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT which is the reason why a different wake
mechanism is used.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210928150006.597310-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de
Dan reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() can be called with
.orig_waiter == NULL however commit a055fcc132 ("locking/rtmutex: Return
success on deadlock for ww_mutex waiters") unconditionally dereferences it.
Since both call-sites that have .orig_waiter == NULL don't care for the
return value, simply disable the deadlock squash by adding the NULL check.
Notably, both callers use the deadlock condition as a termination condition
for the iteration; once detected, it is sure that (de)boosting is done.
Arguably step [3] would be a more natural termination point, but it's
dubious whether adding a third deadlock detection state would improve the
code.
Fixes: a055fcc132 ("locking/rtmutex: Return success on deadlock for ww_mutex waiters")
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YS9La56fHMiCCo75@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
ww_mutexes can legitimately cause a deadlock situation in the lock graph
which is resolved afterwards by the wait/wound mechanics. The rtmutex chain
walk can detect such a deadlock and returns EDEADLK which in turn skips the
wait/wound mechanism and returns EDEADLK to the caller. That's wrong
because both lock chains might get EDEADLK or the wrong waiter would back
out.
Detect that situation and return 'success' in case that the waiter which
initiated the chain walk is a ww_mutex with context. This allows the
wait/wound mechanics to resolve the situation according to the rules.
[ tglx: Split it apart and added changelog ]
Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Fixes: add461325e ("locking/rtmutex: Extend the rtmutex core to support ww_mutex")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YSeWjCHoK4v5OcOt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
rtmutex based ww_mutexes can legitimately create a cycle in the lock graph
which can be observed by a blocker which didn't cause the problem:
P1: A, ww_A, ww_B
P2: ww_B, ww_A
P3: A
P3 might therefore be trapped in the ww_mutex induced cycle and run into
the lock depth limitation of rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() which returns
-EDEADLK to the caller.
Disable the deadlock detection walk when the chain walk observes a
ww_mutex to prevent this looping.
[ tglx: Split it apart and added changelog ]
Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Fixes: add461325e ("locking/rtmutex: Extend the rtmutex core to support ww_mutex")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YSeWjCHoK4v5OcOt@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
The rt_mutex based ww_mutex variant queues the new waiter first in the
lock's rbtree before evaluating the ww_mutex specific conditions which
might decide that the waiter should back out. This check and conditional
exit happens before the waiter is enqueued into the PI chain.
The failure handling at the call site assumes that the waiter, if it is the
top most waiter on the lock, is queued in the PI chain and then proceeds to
adjust the unmodified PI chain, which results in RB tree corruption.
Dequeue the waiter from the lock waiter list in the ww_mutex error exit
path to prevent this.
Fixes: add461325e ("locking/rtmutex: Extend the rtmutex core to support ww_mutex")
Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210825102454.042280541@linutronix.de
The new rt_mutex_spin_on_onwer() loop checks whether the spinning waiter is
still the top waiter on the lock by utilizing rt_mutex_top_waiter(), which
is broken because that function contains a sanity check which dereferences
the top waiter pointer to check whether the waiter belongs to the
lock. That's wrong in the lockless spinwait case:
CPU 0 CPU 1
rt_mutex_lock(lock) rt_mutex_lock(lock);
queue(waiter0)
waiter0 == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)
rt_mutex_spin_on_onwer(lock, waiter0) { queue(waiter1)
waiter1 == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)
...
top_waiter = rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)
leftmost = rb_first_cached(&lock->waiters);
-> signal
dequeue(waiter1)
destroy(waiter1)
w = rb_entry(leftmost, ....)
BUG_ON(w->lock != lock) <- UAF
The BUG_ON() is correct for the case where the caller holds lock->wait_lock
which guarantees that the leftmost waiter entry cannot vanish. For the
lockless spinwait case it's broken.
Create a new helper function which avoids the pointer dereference and just
compares the leftmost entry pointer with current's waiter pointer to
validate that currrent is still elegible for spinning.
Fixes: 992caf7f17 ("locking/rtmutex: Add adaptive spinwait mechanism")
Reported-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210825102453.981720644@linutronix.de
Going to sleep when locks are contended can be quite inefficient when the
contention time is short and the lock owner is running on a different CPU.
The MCS mechanism cannot be used because MCS is strictly FIFO ordered while
for rtmutex based locks the waiter ordering is priority based.
Provide a simple adaptive spinwait mechanism which currently restricts the
spinning to the top priority waiter.
[ tglx: Provide a contemporary changelog, extended it to all rtmutex based
locks and updated it to match the other spin on owner implementations ]
Originally-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
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/20210815211305.912050691@linutronix.de
The current logic only allows lock stealing to occur if the current task is
of higher priority than the pending owner.
Significant throughput improvements can be gained by allowing the lock
stealing to include tasks of equal priority when the contended lock is a
spin_lock or a rw_lock and the tasks are not in a RT scheduling task.
The assumption was that the system will make faster progress by allowing
the task already on the CPU to take the lock rather than waiting for the
system to wake up a different task.
This does add a degree of unfairness, but in reality no negative side
effects have been observed in the many years that this has been used in the
RT kernel.
[ tglx: Refactored and rewritten several times by Steve Rostedt, Sebastian
Siewior and myself ]
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
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/20210815211305.857240222@linutronix.de
Ensure all !RT tasks have the same prio such that they end up in FIFO
order and aren't split up according to nice level.
The reason why nice levels were taken into account so far is historical. In
the early days of the rtmutex code it was done to give the PI boosting and
deboosting a larger coverage.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
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/20210815211303.938676930@linutronix.de
Guard the regular sleeping lock specific functionality, which is used for
rtmutex on non-RT enabled kernels and for mutex, rtmutex and semaphores on
RT enabled kernels so the code can be reused for the RT specific
implementation of spinlocks and rwlocks in a different compilation unit.
No functional change.
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/20210815211303.311535693@linutronix.de
Add an rtlock_task pointer to rt_mutex_wake_q, which allows to handle the RT
specific wakeup for spin/rwlock waiters. The pointer is just consuming 4/8
bytes on the stack so it is provided unconditionaly to avoid #ifdeffery all
over the place.
This cannot use a regular wake_q, because a task can have concurrent wakeups which
would make it miss either lock or the regular wakeups, depending on what gets
queued first, unless task struct gains a separate wake_q_node for this, which
would be overkill, because there can only be a single task which gets woken
up in the spin/rw_lock unlock path.
No functional change for non-RT enabled kernels.
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/20210815211303.253614678@linutronix.de
To handle the difference between wakeups for regular sleeping locks (mutex,
rtmutex, rw_semaphore) and the wakeups for 'sleeping' spin/rwlocks on
PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels correctly, it is required to provide a
wake_q_head construct which allows to keep them separate.
Provide a wrapper around wake_q_head and the required helpers, which will be
extended with the state handling later.
No functional change.
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/20210815211303.139337655@linutronix.de
Regular sleeping locks like mutexes, rtmutexes and rw_semaphores are always
entering and leaving a blocking section with task state == TASK_RUNNING.
On a non-RT kernel spinlocks and rwlocks never affect the task state, but
on RT kernels these locks are converted to rtmutex based 'sleeping' locks.
So in case of contention the task goes to block, which requires to carefully
preserve the task state, and restore it after acquiring the lock taking
regular wakeups for the task into account, which happened while the task was
blocked. This state preserving is achieved by having a separate task state
for blocking on a RT spin/rwlock and a saved_state field in task_struct
along with careful handling of these wakeup scenarios in try_to_wake_up().
To avoid conditionals in the rtmutex code, store the wake state which has
to be used for waking a lock waiter in rt_mutex_waiter which allows to
handle the regular and RT spin/rwlocks by handing it to wake_up_state().
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/20210815211303.079800739@linutronix.de
RT builds substitutions for rwsem, mutex, spinlock and rwlock around
rtmutexes. Split the inner working out so each lock substitution can use
them with the appropriate lockdep annotations. This avoids having an extra
unused lockdep map in the wrapped rtmutex.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
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/20210815211302.784739994@linutronix.de
