From: Manfred Spraul Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:15:19 +0000 (+1100) Subject: ipc/sem.c: alternatives to preempt_disable() X-Git-Tag: next-20121031~1^2~16 X-Git-Url: https://git.karo-electronics.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=c93b9ac5e865014af36bd984aa563dd797d27134;p=karo-tx-linux.git ipc/sem.c: alternatives to preempt_disable() ipc/sem.c uses a custom wakeup scheme that relies on preempt_disable(). On -RT, this causes increased latencies and debug warnings. The patch adds two additional schemes: - one built around a completion - could be better for -RT kernels - one built around a spinlock - unfortunately it's broken - and the current one My preferred solution would be the spinlock implementation: RT would use premptible spinlocks, mainline normal spinlocks. Thus both get the optimal implementation without any special code in ipc/sem.c. Unfortunately, I don't see how it could be fixed. Signed-off-by: Manfred Spraul Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Mike Galbraith Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c index 58d31f1c1eb5..ebd8fececcfc 100644 --- a/ipc/sem.c +++ b/ipc/sem.c @@ -61,8 +61,8 @@ * - A woken up task may not even touch the semaphore array anymore, it may * have been destroyed already by a semctl(RMID). * - The synchronizations between wake-ups due to a timeout/signal and a - * wake-up due to a completed semaphore operation is achieved by using an - * intermediate state (IN_WAKEUP). + * wake-up due to a completed semaphore operation is achieved by using a + * special wakeup scheme (queuewakeup_wait and support functions) * - UNDO values are stored in an array (one per process and per * semaphore array, lazily allocated). For backwards compatibility, multiple * modes for the UNDO variables are supported (per process, per thread) @@ -90,6 +90,135 @@ #include #include "util.h" + +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE + #define SYSVSEM_COMPLETION 1 +#else + #define SYSVSEM_CUSTOM 1 +#endif + +#ifdef SYSVSEM_COMPLETION + /* Using a completion causes some overhead, but avoids a busy loop + * that increases the worst case latency. + */ + struct queue_done { + struct completion done; + }; + + static void queuewakeup_prepare(void) + { + /* no preparation necessary */ + } + + static void queuewakeup_completed(void) + { + /* empty */ + } + + static void queuewakeup_block(struct queue_done *qd) + { + /* empty */ + } + + static void queuewakeup_handsoff(struct queue_done *qd) + { + complete_all(&qd->done); + } + + static void queuewakeup_init(struct queue_done *qd) + { + init_completion(&qd->done); + } + + static void queuewakeup_wait(struct queue_done *qd) + { + wait_for_completion(&qd->done); + } + +#elif defined(SYSVSEM_SPINLOCK) + /* Note: Spinlocks do not work because: + * - lockdep complains [could be fixed] + * - only 255 concurrent spin_lock() calls are permitted, then the + * preempt-counter overflows + */ +#error SYSVSEM_SPINLOCK is a prove of concept, does not work. + struct queue_done { + spinlock_t done; + }; + + static void queuewakeup_prepare(void) + { + /* empty */ + } + + static void queuewakeup_completed(void) + { + /* empty */ + } + + static void queuewakeup_block(struct queue_done *qd) + { + BUG_ON(spin_is_locked(&qd->done)); + spin_lock(&qd->done); + } + + static void queuewakeup_handsoff(struct queue_done *qd) + { + spin_unlock(&qd->done); + } + + static void queuewakeup_init(struct queue_done *qd) + { + spin_lock_init(&qd->done); + } + + static void queuewakeup_wait(struct queue_done *qd) + { + spin_unlock_wait(&qd->done); + } +#else + struct queue_done { + atomic_t done; + }; + + static void queuewakeup_prepare(void) + { + preempt_disable(); + } + + static void queuewakeup_completed(void) + { + preempt_enable(); + } + + static void queuewakeup_block(struct queue_done *qd) + { + BUG_ON(atomic_read(&qd->done) != 1); + atomic_set(&qd->done, 2); + } + + static void queuewakeup_handsoff(struct queue_done *qd) + { + BUG_ON(atomic_read(&qd->done) != 2); + smp_mb(); + atomic_set(&qd->done, 1); + } + + static void queuewakeup_init(struct queue_done *qd) + { + atomic_set(&qd->done, 1); + } + + static void queuewakeup_wait(struct queue_done *qd) + { + while (atomic_read(&qd->done) != 1) + cpu_relax(); + + smp_mb(); + } +#endif + + /* One semaphore structure for each semaphore in the system. */ struct sem { int semval; /* current value */ @@ -108,6 +237,7 @@ struct sem_queue { struct sembuf *sops; /* array of pending operations */ int nsops; /* number of operations */ int alter; /* does *sops alter the array? */ + struct queue_done done; /* completion synchronization */ }; /* Each task has a list of undo requests. They are executed automatically @@ -245,23 +375,27 @@ static inline void sem_rmid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct sem_array *s) * - queue.status is initialized to -EINTR before blocking. * - wakeup is performed by * * unlinking the queue entry from sma->sem_pending - * * setting queue.status to IN_WAKEUP - * This is the notification for the blocked thread that a - * result value is imminent. + * * setting queue.status to the actual result code + * This is the notification for the blocked thread that someone + * (usually: update_queue()) completed the semtimedop() operation. * * call wake_up_process - * * set queue.status to the final value. + * * queuewakeup_handsoff(&q->done); * - the previously blocked thread checks queue.status: - * * if it's IN_WAKEUP, then it must wait until the value changes - * * if it's not -EINTR, then the operation was completed by - * update_queue. semtimedop can return queue.status without - * performing any operation on the sem array. - * * otherwise it must acquire the spinlock and check what's up. + * * if it's not -EINTR, then someone completed the operation. + * First, queuewakeup_wait() must be called. Afterwards, + * semtimedop must return queue.status without performing any + * operation on the sem array. + * - otherwise it must acquire the spinlock and repeat the test + * - If it is still -EINTR, then no update_queue() completed the + * operation, thus semtimedop() can proceed normally. * - * The two-stage algorithm is necessary to protect against the following + * queuewakeup_wait() is necessary to protect against the following * races: * - if queue.status is set after wake_up_process, then the woken up idle * thread could race forward and try (and fail) to acquire sma->lock - * before update_queue had a chance to set queue.status + * before update_queue had a chance to set queue.status. + * More importantly, it would mean that wake_up_process must be done + * while holding sma->lock, i.e. this would reduce the scalability. * - if queue.status is written before wake_up_process and if the * blocked process is woken up by a signal between writing * queue.status and the wake_up_process, then the woken up @@ -271,7 +405,6 @@ static inline void sem_rmid(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct sem_array *s) * (yes, this happened on s390 with sysv msg). * */ -#define IN_WAKEUP 1 /** * newary - Create a new semaphore set @@ -461,15 +594,11 @@ undo: static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(struct list_head *pt, struct sem_queue *q, int error) { - if (list_empty(pt)) { - /* - * Hold preempt off so that we don't get preempted and have the - * wakee busy-wait until we're scheduled back on. - */ - preempt_disable(); - } - q->status = IN_WAKEUP; - q->pid = error; + if (list_empty(pt)) + queuewakeup_prepare(); + + queuewakeup_block(&q->done); + q->status = error; list_add_tail(&q->simple_list, pt); } @@ -480,8 +609,8 @@ static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(struct list_head *pt, * * Do the actual wake-up. * The function is called without any locks held, thus the semaphore array - * could be destroyed already and the tasks can disappear as soon as the - * status is set to the actual return code. + * could be destroyed already and the tasks can disappear as soon as + * queuewakeup_handsoff() is called. */ static void wake_up_sem_queue_do(struct list_head *pt) { @@ -491,12 +620,11 @@ static void wake_up_sem_queue_do(struct list_head *pt) did_something = !list_empty(pt); list_for_each_entry_safe(q, t, pt, simple_list) { wake_up_process(q->sleeper); - /* q can disappear immediately after writing q->status. */ - smp_wmb(); - q->status = q->pid; + /* q can disappear immediately after completing q->done */ + queuewakeup_handsoff(&q->done); } if (did_something) - preempt_enable(); + queuewakeup_completed(); } static void unlink_queue(struct sem_array *sma, struct sem_queue *q) @@ -1302,33 +1430,6 @@ out: return un; } - -/** - * get_queue_result - Retrieve the result code from sem_queue - * @q: Pointer to queue structure - * - * Retrieve the return code from the pending queue. If IN_WAKEUP is found in - * q->status, then we must loop until the value is replaced with the final - * value: This may happen if a task is woken up by an unrelated event (e.g. - * signal) and in parallel the task is woken up by another task because it got - * the requested semaphores. - * - * The function can be called with or without holding the semaphore spinlock. - */ -static int get_queue_result(struct sem_queue *q) -{ - int error; - - error = q->status; - while (unlikely(error == IN_WAKEUP)) { - cpu_relax(); - error = q->status; - } - - return error; -} - - SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops, unsigned, nsops, const struct timespec __user *, timeout) { @@ -1474,6 +1575,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(semtimedop, int, semid, struct sembuf __user *, tsops, queue.status = -EINTR; queue.sleeper = current; + queuewakeup_init(&queue.done); sleep_again: current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; @@ -1484,17 +1586,14 @@ sleep_again: else schedule(); - error = get_queue_result(&queue); + error = queue.status; if (error != -EINTR) { /* fast path: update_queue already obtained all requested - * resources. - * Perform a smp_mb(): User space could assume that semop() - * is a memory barrier: Without the mb(), the cpu could - * speculatively read in user space stale data that was - * overwritten by the previous owner of the semaphore. + * resources. Just ensure that update_queue completed + * it's access to &queue. */ - smp_mb(); + queuewakeup_wait(&queue.done); goto out_free; } @@ -1504,23 +1603,16 @@ sleep_again: /* * Wait until it's guaranteed that no wakeup_sem_queue_do() is ongoing. */ - error = get_queue_result(&queue); - - /* - * Array removed? If yes, leave without sem_unlock(). - */ - if (IS_ERR(sma)) { - goto out_free; - } - - - /* - * If queue.status != -EINTR we are woken up by another process. - * Leave without unlink_queue(), but with sem_unlock(). - */ - + error = queue.status; if (error != -EINTR) { - goto out_unlock_free; + /* If there is a return code, then we can leave immediately. */ + if (!IS_ERR(sma)) { + /* sem_lock() succeeded - then unlock */ + sem_unlock(sma); + } + /* Except that we must wait for the hands-off */ + queuewakeup_wait(&queue.done); + goto out_free; } /*