On 06/14/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:05:43PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
In short, with Wait-Die (before the patch) it's the process _taking_ the
contended lock that backs off if necessary. No preemption required. With
Wound-Wait, it's the process _holding_ the contended lock that gets wounded
(preempted), and it needs to back off at its own discretion but no later
than when it's going to sleep on another ww mutex. That point is where we
intercept the preemption request. We're preempting the transaction rather
than the process.
This:
Wait-die:
The newer transactions are killed when:
It (= the newer transaction) makes a reqeust for a lock being held
by an older transactions
Wound-wait:
The newer transactions are killed when:
An older transaction makes a request for a lock being held by the
newer transactions
Would make for an excellent comment somewhere. No talking about
preemption, although I think I know what you mean with it, that is not
how preemption is normally used.
Ok. I'll incorporate something along this line. Unfortunately that last
statement is not fully true. It should read
"The newer transactions are wounded when:", not "killed" when.
The literature makes a distinction between "killed" and "wounded". In
our context, "Killed" is when a transaction actually receives an
-EDEADLK and needs to back off. "Wounded" is when someone (typically
another transaction) requests a transaction to kill itself. A wound will
often, but not always, lead to a kill. If the wounded transaction has
finished its locking sequence, or has the opportunity to grab
uncontended ww mutexes or steal contended (non-handoff) ww mutexes to
finish its transaction it will do so and never kill itself.
In scheduling speak preemption is when we pick a runnable (but !running)
task to run instead of the current running task. In this case however,
our T2 is blocked on a lock acquisition (one owned by our T1) and T1 is
the only runnable task. Only when T1's progress is inhibited by T2 (T1
wants a lock held by T2) do we wound/wake T2.
Indeed. The preemption spoken about in the Wound-Wait litterature means
that a transaction preempts another transaction when it wounds it. In
distributed computing my understanding is that the preempted transaction
is aborted instantly and restarted after a random delay. Of course, we
have no means of mapping wounding to process preemption in the linux
kernel, so that's why I referred to it as "lazy preemption". In process
analogy "wounded" wound roughly correspond to (need_resched() == true),
and returning -EDEADLK would correspond to voluntary preemption.
In any case, I had a little look at the current ww_mutex code and ended
up with the below patch that hopefully clarifies things a little.
---
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index f44f658ae629..a20c04619b2a 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -244,6 +244,10 @@ void __sched mutex_lock(struct mutex *lock)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock);
#endif
+/*
+ * Associate the ww_mutex @ww with the context @ww_ctx under which we acquired
+ * it.
+ */
IMO use of "acquire_context" or "context" is a little unfortunate when
the literature uses "transaction",
but otherwise fine.
static __always_inline void
ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
{
@@ -282,26 +286,36 @@ ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(ww_ctx->ww_class != ww->ww_class);
#endif
ww_ctx->acquired++;
+ lock->ctx = ctx;
}
+/*
+ * Determine if context @a is 'after' context @b. IOW, @a should be wounded in
+ * favour of @b.
+ */
So "wounded" should never really be used with Wait-Die
"Determine whether context @a represents a younger transaction than
context @b"?
static inline bool __sched
__ww_ctx_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
{
- return a->stamp - b->stamp <= LONG_MAX &&
- (a->stamp != b->stamp || a > b);
+
+ return (signed long)(a->stamp - b->stamp) > 0;
}
/*
- * Wake up any waiters that may have to back off when the lock is held by the
- * given context.
+ * We just acquired @lock under @ww_ctx, if there are later contexts waiting
+ * behind us on the wait-list, wake them up so they can wound themselves.
Actually for Wait-Die, Back off or "Die" is the correct terminology.
*
- * Due to the invariants on the wait list, this can only affect the first
- * waiter with a context.
+ * See __ww_mutex_add_waiter() for the list-order construction; basically the
+ * list is ordered by stamp smallest (oldest) first, so if there is a later
+ * (younger) stamp on the list behind us, wake it so it can wound itself.
+ *
+ * Because __ww_mutex_add_waiter() and __ww_mutex_check_stamp() wake any
+ * but the earliest context, this can only affect the first waiter (with a
+ * context).
The wait list invariants are stated in
Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.txt.
Perhaps we could copy those into the code to make the comment more
understandable:
" We maintain the following invariants for the wait list:
(1) Waiters with an acquire context are sorted by stamp order; waiters
without an acquire context are interspersed in FIFO order.
(2) For Wait-Die, among waiters with contexts, only the first one can
have
other locks acquired already (ctx->acquired > 0). Note that this
waiter
may come after other waiters without contexts in the list."
*
* The current task must not be on the wait list.
*/
static void __sched
-__ww_mutex_wakeup_for_backoff(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
+__ww_mutex_wakeup_for_wound(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
Again, "wound" is unsuitable for Wait-Die. + numerous additional places.
Thanks,
Thomas
