On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hello all, > Michael, thank you for your diligence in following up and collecting reviews. I've attempted to respond to what I was specifically called out in or where I had something specific to add in addition to other replies. After this, will you send another version (numbered for reference maybe?) with any remaining FIXMEs that haven't yet been addressed according to your accounting? ... > Priority-inheritance futexes > Linux supports priority-inheritance (PI) futexes in order to han‐ > dle priority-inversion problems that can be encountered with nor‐ > mal futex locks. Priority inversion is the problem that occurs > when a high-priority task is blocked waiting to acquire a lock > held by a low-priority task, while tasks at an intermediate pri‐ > ority continuously preempt the low-priority task from the CPU. > Consequently, the low-priority task makes no progress toward > releasing the lock, and the high-priority task remains blocked. > > Priority inheritance is a mechanism for dealing with the prior‐ > ity-inversion problem. With this mechanism, when a high-priority > task becomes blocked by a lock held by a low-priority task, the > latter's priority is temporarily raised to that of the former, so > that it is not preempted by any intermediate level tasks, and can > thus make progress toward releasing the lock. To be effective, > priority inheritance must be transitive, meaning that if a high- > priority task blocks on a lock held by a lower-priority task that > is itself blocked by lock held by another intermediate-priority > task (and so on, for chains of arbitrary length), then both of > those task (or more generally, all of the tasks in a lock chain) > have their priorities raised to be the same as the high-priority > task. > > .\" FIXME XXX The following is my attempt at a definition of PI futexes, > .\" based on mail discussions with Darren Hart. Does it seem okay? > > From a user-space perspective, what makes a futex PI-aware is a > policy agreement between user space and the kernel about the > value of the futex word (described in a moment), coupled with the > use of the PI futex operations described below (in particular, > FUTEX_LOCK_PI, FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI, and FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI). Yes. Was this intended to be a complete opcode list? PI operations must use paired operations. (FUTEX_LOCK_PI | FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI) : FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI : FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI And their PRIVATE counterparts of course (which is assumed as it is a flag to the opcode). > > .\" FIXME XXX ===== Start of adapted Hart/Guniguntala text ===== > .\" The following text is drawn from the Hart/Guniguntala paper > .\" (listed in SEE ALSO), but I have reworded some pieces > .\" significantly. Please check it. > > The PI futex operations described below differ from the other > futex operations in that they impose policy on the use of the > value of the futex word: > > * If the lock is not acquired, the futex word's value shall be > 0. > > * If the lock is acquired, the futex word's value shall be the > thread ID (TID; see gettid(2)) of the owning thread. > > * If the lock is owned and there are threads contending for the > lock, then the FUTEX_WAITERS bit shall be set in the futex > word's value; in other words, this value is: > > FUTEX_WAITERS | TID > > > Note that a PI futex word never just has the value FUTEX_WAITERS, > which is a permissible state for non-PI futexes. The second clause is inappropriate. I don't know if that was yours or mine, but non-PI futexes do not have a kernel defined value policy, so ==FUTEX_WAITERS cannot be a "permissible state" as any value is permissible for non-PI futexes, and none have a kernel defined state. Perhaps include a Note under the third bullet as: Note: It is invalid for a PI futex word to have no owner and FUTEX_WAITERS set. > > With this policy in place, a user-space application can acquire a > not-acquired lock or release a lock that no other threads try to "that no other threads try to acquire" seems out of place. I think "atomic instructions" is sufficient to express how contention is handled. > acquire using atomic instructions executed in user space (e.g., a > compare-and-swap operation such as cmpxchg on the x86 architec‐ > ture). Acquiring a lock simply consists of using compare-and- > swap to atomically set the futex word's value to the caller's TID > if its previous value was 0. Releasing a lock requires using > compare-and-swap to set the futex word's value to 0 if the previ‐ > ous value was the expected TID. > > If a futex is already acquired (i.e., has a nonzero value), wait‐ > ers must employ the FUTEX_LOCK_PI operation to acquire the lock. > If other threads are waiting for the lock, then the FUTEX_WAITERS > bit is set in the futex value; in this case, the lock owner must > employ the FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI operation to release the lock. > > In the cases where callers are forced into the kernel (i.e., > required to perform a futex() call), they then deal directly with > a so-called RT-mutex, a kernel locking mechanism which implements > the required priority-inheritance semantics. After the RT-mutex > is acquired, the futex value is updated accordingly, before the > calling thread returns to user space. This last paragraph relies on kernel implementation rather than behavior. If the RT-mutex is renamed or the mechanism is implemented differently in futexes, this section will require updating. Is that appropriate for a user-space man page? > .\" FIXME ===== End of adapted Hart/Guniguntala text ===== > > > > .\" FIXME We need some explanation in the following paragraph of *why* > .\" it is important to note that "the kernel will update the > .\" futex word's value prior > It is important to note to returning to user space" . Can someone > explain? that the kernel will update the futex word's value > prior to returning to user space. Unlike the other futex opera‐ > tions described above, the PI futex operations are designed for > the implementation of very specific IPC mechanisms. If the kernel didn't perform the update prior to returning to userspace, we could end up in an invalid state. Such as having an owner, but the value being 0. Or having waiters, but not having FUTEX_WAITERS set. > .\" > .\" FIXME XXX In discussing errors for FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI, Darren Hart > .\" made the observation that "EINVAL is returned if the non-pi > .\" to pi or op pairing semantics are violated." > .\" Probably there needs to be a general statement about this > .\" requirement, probably located at about this point in the page. > .\" Darren (or someone else), care to take a shot at this? We can probably borrow from either the futex.c comments or the futex-requeue-pi.txt in Documentation. Also, it is important to note that the PI requeue operations require two distinct uadders (although that is implied by requiring "non-pi to pi" as a futex cannot be both. Or... perhaps something like: Due to the kernel imposed futex word value policy, PI futex operations have additional usage requirements: FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI must be paired with FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI and be performed from a non-pi futex to a distinct pi futex. Failing to do so will return EINVAL. Additionally, FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI requires that nr_wake=1. [We state in the docs that nr_requeue should be INT_MAX for broadcast and 0 for signal... but that may be overly specific to libc for this manual] Similarly, FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI must only be called on a futex owned by the calling thread as defined by the value policy, otherwise EPERM is returned. Were you looking for something like that - or were you looking for justification for these requirements? ... > FUTEX_LOCK_PI (since Linux 2.6.18) > .\" FIXME I did some significant rewording of tglx's text to create > .\" the text below. > .\" Please check the following paragraph, in case I injected > .\" errors. > This operation is used after after an attempt to acquire > the lock via an atomic user-space instruction failed > because the futex word has a nonzero value—specifically, > because it contained the namespace-specific TID of the > lock owner. Acked. ... > FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI (since Linux 2.6.18) > .\" FIXME I think it would be helpful here to say a few more words about > .\" the difference(s) between FUTEX_LOCK_PI and FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI. > .\" Can someone propose something? > This operation tries to acquire the futex at uaddr. It > deals with the situation where the TID value at uaddr is > 0, but the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set. User space cannot > handle this condition in a race-free manner > .\" FIXME How does the situation in the previous sentence come about? > .\" Probably it would be helpful to say something about that in > .\" the man page. > .\" FIXME And *how* does FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI deal with this situation? I guess I wouldn't expect to see this detail in the manual. That state should never exist in userspace as far as I understand it, which makes it a kernel implementation detail and not relevant to a usage manual. ... > > FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI (since Linux 2.6.31) > This operation is a PI-aware variant of FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE. > It requeues waiters that are blocked via > FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI on uaddr from a non-PI source futex > (uaddr) to a PI target futex (uaddr2). > > As with FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE, this operation wakes up a maxi‐ > mum of val waiters that are waiting on the futex at uaddr. > However, for FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI, val is required to be 1 > (since the main point is to avoid a thundering herd). The > remaining waiters are removed from the wait queue of the > source futex at uaddr and added to the wait queue of the > target futex at uaddr2. > > The val2 and val3 arguments serve the same purposes as for > FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE. > .\" FIXME The page at http://locklessinc.com/articles/futex_cheat_sheet/ > .\" notes that "priority-inheritance Futex to priority-inheritance > .\" Futex requeues are currently unsupported". Do we need to say > .\" something in the man page about that? > I noted this above in response to your request for detail about the *REQUEUE_PI semantics and error codes. Was that sufficient? > > > FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI (since Linux 2.6.31) > > .\" FIXME I find the next sentence (from tglx) pretty hard to grok. > .\" Could someone explain it a bit more? > > Wait operation to wait on a non-PI futex at uaddr and > potentially be requeued onto a PI futex at uaddr2. The > wait operation on uaddr is the same as FUTEX_WAIT. The point tglx is making here is that you must know ahead of time and tell the kernel that you intend to use this futex in a REQUEUE_PI operation, and not a regular REQUEUE. This is determined by the both the op codes as well as the required arguments, which I also documented above. Is more detail required? > > .\" FIXME I'm not quite clear on the meaning of the following sentence. > .\" Is this trying to say that while blocked in a > .\" FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI, it could happen that another > .\" task does a FUTEX_WAKE on uaddr that simply causes > .\" a normal wake, with the result that the FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI > .\" does not complete? What happens then to the FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI > .\" opertion? Does it remain blocked, or does it unblock > .\" In which case, what does user space see? > > The > waiter can be removed from the wait on uaddr via > FUTEX_WAKE without requeueing on uaddr2. Userspace should see the task wake and continue executing. This would effectively be a cancelation operation - which I didn't think was supported. Thomas? ... > > .\" FIXME XXX The following is a reworded version of Darren Hart's text. > .\" Please check that I did not introduce any errors. > EINVAL (FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI) An attempt was made to requeue a > waiter to a futex other than that specified by the match‐ > ing FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI call for that waiter. Acked. Thanks Michael! -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
