From: Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hpe.com>
As both an optimistic spinner and a waiter-spinner (a woken task from
the wait queue spinning) can be spinning on the lock at the same time,
we cannot ensure forward progress for the waiter-spinner. Therefore,
it is possible for the waiter-spinner to be starved of getting the
lock, though not likely.
This patch adds a flag to indicate that a waiter-spinner is
spinning and hence has priority over the acquisition of the lock. A
waiter-spinner sets this flag while spinning. An optimistic spinner
will check this flag and yield if set. This essentially makes the
waiter-spinner jump to the head of the optimistic spinning queue to
acquire the lock.
There will be no increase in size for the mutex structure for 64-bit
architectures. For 32-bit architectures, there will be a size increase
of 4 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <waiman.l...@hpe.com>
---
include/linux/mutex.h | 1 +
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
index 2cb7531..f8e91ad 100644
--- a/include/linux/mutex.h
+++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
@@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ struct mutex {
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
struct optimistic_spin_queue osq; /* Spinner MCS lock */
+ int waiter_spinning;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
void *magic;
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 24133c1..3bcd25c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const char *name, struct
lock_class_key *key)
mutex_clear_owner(lock);
#ifdef CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
osq_lock_init(&lock->osq);
+ lock->waiter_spinning = false;
#endif
debug_mutex_init(lock, name, key);
@@ -341,9 +342,21 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
*/
if (!osq_lock(&lock->osq))
goto done;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Turn on the waiter spinning flag to discourage the spinner
+ * from getting the lock.
+ */
+ lock->waiter_spinning = true;
}
- while (true) {
+ /*
+ * The cpu_relax_lowlatency() call is a compiler barrier which forces
+ * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need memory
+ * barriers as we'll eventually observe the right values at the cost
+ * of a few extra spins.
+ */
+ for (;; cpu_relax_lowlatency()) {
struct task_struct *owner;
if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
@@ -363,6 +376,17 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
}
/*
+ * For regular opt-spinner, it waits until the waiter_spinning
+ * flag isn't set. This will ensure forward progress for
+ * the waiter spinner.
+ */
+ if (!waiter && READ_ONCE(lock->waiter_spinning)) {
+ if (need_resched())
+ break;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /*
* If there's an owner, wait for it to either
* release the lock or go to sleep.
*/
@@ -394,18 +418,12 @@ static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
*/
if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task)))
break;
-
- /*
- * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
- * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
- * memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
- * values at the cost of a few extra spins.
- */
- cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
if (!waiter)
osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
+ else
+ lock->waiter_spinning = false;
done:
/*
* If we fell out of the spin path because of need_resched(),
--
2.5.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
