Add the contended_release trace event. This tracepoint fires on the
holder side when a contended lock is released, complementing the
existing contention_begin/contention_end tracepoints which fire on the
waiter side.
This enables correlating lock hold time under contention with waiter
events by lock address.
Add trace_contended_release()/trace_call__contended_release() calls to
the slowpath unlock paths of sleepable locks: mutex, rtmutex, semaphore,
rwsem, percpu-rwsem, and RT-specific rwbase locks.
Where possible, trace_contended_release() fires before the lock is
released and before the waiter is woken. For some lock types, the
tracepoint fires after the release but before the wake. Making the
placement consistent across all lock types is not worth the added
complexity.
For reader/writer locks, the tracepoint fires for every reader releasing
while a writer is waiting, not only for the last reader.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@ilvokhin.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/02f4f6c5ce6761e7f6587cf0ff2289d962ecddd4.1780506267.git.d@ilvokhin.com
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphore and rwlock_t locks are unfair to writers.
Readers can indefinitely acquire the lock unless the writer fully acquired
the lock, which might never happen if there is always a reader in the
critical section owning the lock.
Mel Gorman reported that since LTP-20220121 the dio_truncate test case
went from having 1 reader to having 16 readers and that number of readers
is sufficient to prevent the down_write ever succeeding while readers
exist. Eventually the test is killed after 30 minutes as a failure.
Mel proposed a timeout to limit how long a writer can be blocked until
the reader is forced into the slowpath.
Thomas argued that there is no added value by providing this timeout. From
a PREEMPT_RT point of view, there are no critical rw_semaphore or rwlock_t
locks left where the reader must be preferred.
Mitigate indefinite writer starvation by forcing the READER into the
slowpath once the WRITER attempts to acquire the lock.
Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/877cwbq4cq.ffs@tglx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230321161140.HMcQEhHb@linutronix.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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
Readers of rwbase can lock and unlock without taking any inner lock, if
that happens, we need the ordering provided by atomic operations to
satisfy the ordering semantics of lock/unlock. Without that, considering
the follow case:
{ X = 0 initially }
CPU 0 CPU 1
===== =====
rt_write_lock();
X = 1
rt_write_unlock():
atomic_add(READER_BIAS - WRITER_BIAS, ->readers);
// ->readers is READER_BIAS.
rt_read_lock():
if ((r = atomic_read(->readers)) < 0) // True
atomic_try_cmpxchg(->readers, r, r + 1); // succeed.
<acquire the read lock via fast path>
r1 = X; // r1 may be 0, because nothing prevent the reordering
// of "X=1" and atomic_add() on CPU 1.
Therefore audit every usage of atomic operations that may happen in a
fast path, and add necessary barriers.
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.953991276@infradead.org
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphores and rwlocks are substituted with an rtmutex and
a reader count. The implementation is writer unfair, as it is not feasible
to do priority inheritance on multiple readers, but experience has shown
that real-time workloads are not the typical workloads which are sensitive
to writer starvation.
The inner workings of rw_semaphores and rwlocks on RT are almost identical
except for the task state and signal handling. rw_semaphores are not state
preserving over a contention, they are expected to enter and leave with state
== TASK_RUNNING. rwlocks have a mechanism to preserve the state of the task
at entry and restore it after unblocking taking potential non-lock related
wakeups into account. rw_semaphores can also be subject to signal handling
interrupting a blocked state, while rwlocks ignore signals.
To avoid code duplication, provide a shared implementation which takes the
small difference vs. state and signals into account. The code is included
into the relevant rw_semaphore/rwlock base code and compiled for each use
case separately.
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/20210815211302.957920571@linutronix.de
