On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/sem.h b/include/linux/sem.h
index 976ce3a..d0efd6e 100644
--- a/include/linux/sem.h
+++ b/include/linux/sem.h
@@ -21,6 +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 */
I see this patch also takes care of complex_count needing READ/WRITE_ONCE
as you change that to always be done with the big sem_perm lock.
+ bool complex_mode; /* no parallel simple ops */
But I'm wondering about races with this one. Doesn't complex_mode need
acquire/release semantics?
};
[...]
/*
- * Wait until all currently ongoing simple ops have completed.
+ * Enter the mode suitable for non-simple operations:
* Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
- * New simple ops cannot start, because simple ops first check
- * that sem_perm.lock is free.
- * that a) sem_perm.lock is free and b) complex_count is 0.
*/
-static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
+static void complexmode_enter(struct sem_array *sma)
{
int i;
struct sem *sem;
- if (sma->complex_count) {
- /* The thread that increased sma->complex_count waited on
- * all sem->lock locks. Thus we don't need to wait again.
- */
+ if (sma->complex_mode) {
+ /* We are already in complex_mode. Nothing to do */
This complex_mode load is serialized because both complexmode_enter() and
_tryleave(), which are the main calls that modify the variable, are serialized
by sem_perm lock, right?
return;
}
Btw, I like that this logic is much simpler, just by reading the comments :)
+ WRITE_ONCE(sma->complex_mode, true);
+
+ /* We need a full barrier:
+ * The write to complex_mode must be visible
+ * before we read the first sem->lock spinlock state.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
sem = sma->sem_base + i;
@@ -285,6 +294,29 @@ static void sem_wait_array(struct sem_array *sma)
}
/*
+ * Try to leave the mode that disallows simple operations:
+ * Caller must own sem_perm.lock.
+ */
+static void complexmode_tryleave(struct sem_array *sma)
+{
+ if (sma->complex_count) {
+ /* Complex ops are sleeping.
+ * We must stay in complex mode
+ */
+ return;
+ }
+ /*
+ * Immediately after setting complex_mode to false,
+ * 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);
smp_store_release()? See below.
+}
+
+/*
* If the request contains only one semaphore operation, and there are
* no complex transactions pending, lock only the semaphore involved.
* Otherwise, lock the entire semaphore array, since we either have
@@ -300,56 +332,38 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
/* Complex operation - acquire a full lock */
ipc_lock_object(&sma->sem_perm);
- /* And wait until all simple ops that are processed
- * right now have dropped their locks.
- */
- sem_wait_array(sma);
+ /* Prevent parallel simple ops */
+ complexmode_enter(sma);
return -1;
}
/*
* Only one semaphore affected - try to optimize locking.
- * The rules are:
- * - optimized locking is possible if no complex operation
- * is either enqueued or processed right now.
- * - The test for enqueued complex ops is simple:
- * sma->complex_count != 0
- * - Testing for complex ops that are processed right now is
- * a bit more difficult. Complex ops acquire the full lock
- * and first wait that the running simple ops have completed.
- * (see above)
- * Thus: If we own a simple lock and the global lock is free
- * and complex_count is now 0, then it will stay 0 and
- * thus just locking sem->lock is sufficient.
+ * Optimized locking is possible if no complex operation
+ * is either enqueued or processed right now.
+ *
+ * Both facts are tracked by complex_mode.
*/
sem = sma->sem_base + sops->sem_num;
- if (sma->complex_count == 0) {
+ /*
+ * Initial check for complex_mode. Just an optimization,
+ * no locking.
+ */
+ if (!READ_ONCE(sma->complex_mode)) {
We have no lock (which is the whole point), I think we need stronger
guarantees here to avoid racing with another thread that holds sem_perm
lock and is entering complexmode for the first time or vice versa with
tryleave(). An smp_load_acquire here would pair with the suggested
smp_store_release calls.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
