linux-toradex.git/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c, branch v5.19-rc3 Linux kernel for Apalis and Colibri modules locking: Apply contention tracepoints in the slow path 2022-04-05T08:24:35+00:00 Namhyung Kim namhyung@kernel.org 2022-03-22T18:57:09+00:00 ee042be16cb455116d0fe99b77c6bc8baf87c8c6 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 
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
Merge branch 'locking/urgent' into locking/core 2021-12-18T09:57:03+00:00 Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de 2021-12-18T09:57:03+00:00 f16cc980d649e664b8f41e1bbaba50255d24e5d1 Pick up the spin loop condition fix. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 
Pick up the spin loop condition fix.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
locking/rtmutex: Fix incorrect condition in rtmutex_spin_on_owner() 2021-12-18T09:55:51+00:00 Zqiang qiang1.zhang@intel.com 2021-12-17T07:42:07+00:00 8f556a326c93213927e683fc32bbf5be1b62540a Optimistic spinning needs to be terminated when the spinning waiter is not longer the top waiter on the lock, but the condition is negated. It terminates if the waiter is the top waiter, which is defeating the whole purpose. Fixes: c3123c431447 ("locking/rtmutex: Dont dereference waiter lockless") Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211217074207.77425-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com 
Optimistic spinning needs to be terminated when the spinning waiter is not
longer the top waiter on the lock, but the condition is negated. It
terminates if the waiter is the top waiter, which is defeating the whole
purpose.

Fixes: c3123c431447 ("locking/rtmutex: Dont dereference waiter lockless")
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211217074207.77425-1-qiang1.zhang@intel.com
locking: Make owner_on_cpu() into <linux/sched.h> 2021-12-04T09:56:25+00:00 Kefeng Wang wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com 2021-12-03T07:59:34+00:00 c0bed69daf4b67809b58cc7cd81a8fa4f45bc161 Move the owner_on_cpu() from kernel/locking/rwsem.c into include/linux/sched.h with under CONFIG_SMP, then use it in the mutex/rwsem/rtmutex to simplify the code. Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211203075935.136808-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com 
Move the owner_on_cpu() from kernel/locking/rwsem.c into
include/linux/sched.h with under CONFIG_SMP, then use it
in the mutex/rwsem/rtmutex to simplify the code.

Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211203075935.136808-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com
locking/rtmutex: Squash self-deadlock check for ww_rt_mutex. 2021-12-04T09:56:23+00:00 Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org 2021-11-29T17:46:46+00:00 02ea9fc96fe976e7f7e067f38b12202f126e3f2f Similar to the issues in commits: 6467822b8cc9 ("locking/rtmutex: Prevent spurious EDEADLK return caused by ww_mutexes") a055fcc132d4 ("locking/rtmutex: Return success on deadlock for ww_mutex waiters") ww_rt_mutex_lock() should not return EDEADLK without first going through the __ww_mutex logic to set the required state. In fact, the chain-walk can deal with the spurious cycles (per the above commits) this check warns about and is trying to avoid. Therefore ignore this test for ww_rt_mutex and simply let things fall in place. 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://lore.kernel.org/r/20211129174654.668506-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de 
Similar to the issues in commits:

  6467822b8cc9 ("locking/rtmutex: Prevent spurious EDEADLK return caused by ww_mutexes")
  a055fcc132d4 ("locking/rtmutex: Return success on deadlock for ww_mutex waiters")

ww_rt_mutex_lock() should not return EDEADLK without first going through
the __ww_mutex logic to set the required state. In fact, the chain-walk
can deal with the spurious cycles (per the above commits) this check
warns about and is trying to avoid.

Therefore ignore this test for ww_rt_mutex and simply let things fall
in place.

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://lore.kernel.org/r/20211129174654.668506-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de
rtmutex: Wake up the waiters lockless while dropping the read lock. 2021-10-01T11:57:52+00:00 Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de 2021-09-28T15:00:06+00:00 9321f8152d9a764208c3f0dad49e0c55f293b7ab 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 
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
rtmutex: Check explicit for TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT. 2021-10-01T11:57:52+00:00 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior bigeasy@linutronix.de 2021-09-28T15:00:05+00:00 8fe46535e10dbfebad68ad9f2f8260e49f5852c9 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 
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
locking/rtmutex: Fix ww_mutex deadlock check 2021-09-09T08:31:22+00:00 Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org 2021-09-01T09:44:11+00:00 e5480572706da1b2c2dc2c6484eab64f92b9263b Dan reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() can be called with .orig_waiter == NULL however commit a055fcc132d4 ("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: a055fcc132d4 ("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 
Dan reported that rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain() can be called with
.orig_waiter == NULL however commit a055fcc132d4 ("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: a055fcc132d4 ("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
locking/rtmutex: Return success on deadlock for ww_mutex waiters 2021-08-27T12:28:49+00:00 Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org 2021-08-26T08:48:18+00:00 a055fcc132d4c25b96d1115aea514258810dc6fc 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: add461325ec5 ("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 
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: add461325ec5 ("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
locking/rtmutex: Prevent spurious EDEADLK return caused by ww_mutexes 2021-08-27T12:28:49+00:00 Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org 2021-08-26T07:36:53+00:00 6467822b8cc96e5feda98c7bf5c6329c6a896c91 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: add461325ec5 ("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: add461325ec5 ("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