On 01/04/2016 02:02 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Commit 6d07b68ce16a ("ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()") introduced a
race:
sem_lock has a fast path that allows parallel simple operations.
There are two reasons why a simple operation cannot run in parallel:
- a non-simple operations is ongoing (sma->sem_perm.lock held)
- a complex operation is sleeping (sma->complex_count != 0)
As both facts are stored independently, a thread can bypass the current
checks by sleeping in the right positions. See below for more details
(or kernel bugzilla 105651).
The patch fixes that by creating one variable (complex_mode)
that tracks both reasons why parallel operations are not possible.
The patch also updates stale documentation regarding the locking.
With regards to stable kernels:
The patch is required for all kernels that include the commit
6d07b68ce16a
("ipc/sem.c: optimize sem_lock()") (3.10?)
The alternative is to revert the patch that introduced the race.
I am just now catching up with this, but a quick thought is that we
probably
want to keep 6d07b68ce16a as waiting on unlocking all sem->lock should be
much worse for performance than keeping track of the complex 'mode'.
Keeping track is simple - and the fast path gets simpler compared to
ncurrent code.
Specially
if we have a large array.
Yes, I would prefer my patch as a backport.
But if someone has objections, then a revert would be an alternative.
Also, any idea what workload exposed this race? Anyway, will take a
closer look
at the patch/issue.
It was found by a theoretical review:
The sem_lock code was used as an exercise at University Bremen.
--
Manfred
P.S.: If we replace the "bool" with an "int", we could even introduce a
hysteresis, to further reduce the amount of array scans.
>From d3ea4cddaff440c03b89b045ee5a0be8c4db623d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manfred Spraul <manf...@colorfullife.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 19:20:34 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ipc/sem: sem_lock with hysteresis
Untested
May not work
May not pass checkpatch.pl
May not be an improvement at all, not even for microbenchmarks
May be a worthless pseudo improvement without any real-world
advantages (except more complexity and more risks for bugs)
---
include/linux/sem.h | 2 +-
ipc/sem.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sem.h b/include/linux/sem.h
index d0efd6e..6fb3227 100644
--- a/include/linux/sem.h
+++ b/include/linux/sem.h
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ struct sem_array {
struct list_head list_id; /* undo requests on this array */
int sem_nsems; /* no. of semaphores in array */
int complex_count; /* pending complex operations */
- bool complex_mode; /* no parallel simple ops */
+ int complex_mode; /* >0: no parallel simple ops */
};
#ifdef CONFIG_SYSVIPC
diff --git a/ipc/sem.c b/ipc/sem.c
index 87e1f5d..f580c7c 100644
--- a/ipc/sem.c
+++ b/ipc/sem.c
@@ -154,6 +154,13 @@ static int sysvipc_sem_proc_show(struct seq_file *s, void *it);
#define SEMOPM_FAST 64 /* ~ 372 bytes on stack */
/*
+ * Switching from the mode suitable for complex ops
+ * to the mode for simple ops is costly. Therefore:
+ * use some hysteresis
+ */
+#define COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER 10
+
+/*
* Locking:
* a) global sem_lock() for read/write
* sem_undo.id_next,
@@ -278,11 +285,16 @@ static void complexmode_enter(struct sem_array *sma)
int i;
struct sem *sem;
- if (sma->complex_mode) {
- /* We are already in complex_mode. Nothing to do */
+ if (sma->complex_mode > 0) {
+ /*
+ * We are already in complex_mode.
+ * Nothing to do, just increase
+ * counter until we return to simple mode
+ */
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER);
return;
}
- WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, true);
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER);
/* We need a full barrier:
* The write to complex_mode must be visible
@@ -309,15 +321,18 @@ static void complexmode_tryleave(struct sem_array *sma)
*/
return;
}
+ if (sma->complex_mode == 0) {
+pr_info("error.");
+ }
/*
- * Immediately after setting complex_mode to false,
+ * Immediately after setting complex_mode to 0,
* a simple op can start. Thus: all memory writes
* performed by the current operation must be visible
* before we set complex_mode to false.
*/
smp_wmb();
- WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, false);
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, sma->complex_mode-1);
}
/*
@@ -377,19 +392,30 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
/* False alarm:
- * There is no complex operation, thus we can switch
- * back to the fast path.
- */
- spin_lock(&sem->lock);
- ipc_unlock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
- return sops->sem_num;
- } else {
- /* Not a false alarm, thus complete the sequence for a
- * full lock.
+ * There is no complex operation, check hysteresis
+ * If 0, switch back to the fast path.
*/
- complexmode_enter(sma);
- return -1;
+ if (sma->complex_mode > 0) {
+ /*
+ * barrier provided by spin_lock
+ * sma->sem_perm.lock
+ */
+
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, sma->complex_mode-1);
+ }
+ if (sma->complex_mode == 0) {
+ spin_lock(&sem->lock);
+ ipc_unlock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
+ return sops->sem_num;
+ }
}
+ /*
+ * Not a false alarm, but we must be already in
+ * complex_mode: either because of waiting complex ops,
+ * or due to hysteresis.
+ */
+ WARN_ON(sma->complex_mode == 0);
+ return -1;
}
static inline void sem_unlock(struct sem_array *sma, int locknum)
@@ -548,7 +574,7 @@ static int newary(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_params *params)
}
sma->complex_count = 0;
- sma->complex_mode = true; /* dropped by sem_unlock below */
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, COMPLEX_MODE_ENTER);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_alter);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->pending_const);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sma->list_id);
--
2.4.3
