user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v4.14.112

locking/lockdep: Add debug_locks check in __lock_downgrade()

2019-03-27T05:13:54Z

commit 71492580571467fb7177aade19c18ce7486267f5 upstream. Tetsuo Handa had reported he saw an incorrect "downgrading a read lock" warning right after a previous lockdep warning. It is likely that the previous warning turned off lock debugging causing the lockdep to have inconsistency states leading to the lock downgrade warning. Fix that by add a check for debug_locks at the beginning of __lock_downgrade(). Debugged-by: Tetsuo Handa Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa Reported-by: syzbot+53383ae265fb161ef488@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1547093005-26085-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/rwsem: Fix (possible) missed wakeup

2019-03-05T16:58:00Z

[ Upstream commit e158488be27b157802753a59b336142dc0eb0380 ] Because wake_q_add() can imply an immediate wakeup (cmpxchg failure case), we must not rely on the wakeup being delayed. However, commit: e38513905eea ("locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task") relies on exactly that behaviour in that the wakeup must not happen until after we clear waiter->task. [ peterz: Added changelog. ] Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji Signed-off-by: Zhang Yu Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Fixes: e38513905eea ("locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1543495830-2644-1-git-send-email-xieyongji@baidu.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

futex: Handle early deadlock return correctly

2019-02-12T18:46:12Z

commit 1a1fb985f2e2b85ec0d3dc2e519ee48389ec2434 upstream. commit 56222b212e8e ("futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex") changed the locking rules in the futex code so that the hash bucket lock is not longer held while the waiter is enqueued into the rtmutex wait list. This made the lock and the unlock path symmetric, but unfortunately the possible early exit from __rt_mutex_proxy_start() due to a detected deadlock was not updated accordingly. That allows a concurrent unlocker to observe inconsitent state which triggers the warning in the unlock path. futex_lock_pi() futex_unlock_pi() lock(hb->lock) queue(hb_waiter) lock(hb->lock) lock(rtmutex->wait_lock) unlock(hb->lock) // acquired hb->lock hb_waiter = futex_top_waiter() lock(rtmutex->wait_lock) __rt_mutex_proxy_start() ---> fail remove(rtmutex_waiter); ---> returns -EDEADLOCK unlock(rtmutex->wait_lock) // acquired wait_lock wake_futex_pi() rt_mutex_next_owner() --> returns NULL --> WARN lock(hb->lock) unqueue(hb_waiter) The problem is caused by the remove(rtmutex_waiter) in the failure case of __rt_mutex_proxy_start() as this lets the unlocker observe a waiter in the hash bucket but no waiter on the rtmutex, i.e. inconsistent state. The original commit handles this correctly for the other early return cases (timeout, signal) by delaying the removal of the rtmutex waiter until the returning task reacquired the hash bucket lock. Treat the failure case of __rt_mutex_proxy_start() in the same way and let the existing cleanup code handle the eventual handover of the rtmutex gracefully. The regular rt_mutex_proxy_start() gains the rtmutex waiter removal for the failure case, so that the other callsites are still operating correctly. Add proper comments to the code so all these details are fully documented. Thanks to Peter for helping with the analysis and writing the really valuable code comments. Fixes: 56222b212e8e ("futex: Drop hb->lock before enqueueing on the rtmutex") Reported-by: Heiko Carstens Co-developed-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Tested-by: Heiko Carstens Cc: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Cc: Stefan Liebler Cc: Sebastian Sewior Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.21.1901292311410.1950@nanos.tec.linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/qspinlock, x86: Provide liveness guarantee

2018-12-21T13:13:09Z

commit 7aa54be2976550f17c11a1c3e3630002dea39303 upstream. On x86 we cannot do fetch_or() with a single instruction and thus end up using a cmpxchg loop, this reduces determinism. Replace the fetch_or() with a composite operation: tas-pending + load. Using two instructions of course opens a window we previously did not have. Consider the scenario: CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 1) lock trylock -> (0,0,1) 2) lock trylock /* fail */ 3) unlock -> (0,0,0) 4) lock trylock -> (0,0,1) 5) tas-pending -> (0,1,1) load-val <- (0,1,0) from 3 6) clear-pending-set-locked -> (0,0,1) FAIL: _2_ owners where 5) is our new composite operation. When we consider each part of the qspinlock state as a separate variable (as we can when _Q_PENDING_BITS == 8) then the above is entirely possible, because tas-pending will only RmW the pending byte, so the later load is able to observe prior tail and lock state (but not earlier than its own trylock, which operates on the whole word, due to coherence). To avoid this we need 2 things: - the load must come after the tas-pending (obviously, otherwise it can trivially observe prior state). - the tas-pending must be a full word RmW instruction, it cannot be an XCHGB for example, such that we cannot observe other state prior to setting pending. On x86 we can realize this by using "LOCK BTS m32, r32" for tas-pending followed by a regular load. Note that observing later state is not a problem: - if we fail to observe a later unlock, we'll simply spin-wait for that store to become visible. - if we observe a later xchg_tail(), there is no difference from that xchg_tail() having taken place before the tas-pending. Suggested-by: Will Deacon Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com Cc: longman@redhat.com Fixes: 59fb586b4a07 ("locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130957.183726335@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar [bigeasy: GEN_BINARY_RMWcc macro redo] Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Re-order code

2018-12-21T13:13:09Z

commit 53bf57fab7321fb42b703056a4c80fc9d986d170 upstream. Flip the branch condition after atomic_fetch_or_acquire(_Q_PENDING_VAL) such that we loose the indent. This also result in a more natural code flow IMO. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com Cc: longman@redhat.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181003130257.156322446@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Kill cmpxchg() loop when claiming lock from head of queue

2018-12-21T13:13:09Z

commit c61da58d8a9ba9238250a548f00826eaf44af0f7 upstream. When a queued locker reaches the head of the queue, it claims the lock by setting _Q_LOCKED_VAL in the lockword. If there isn't contention, it must also clear the tail as part of this operation so that subsequent lockers can avoid taking the slowpath altogether. Currently this is expressed as a cmpxchg() loop that practically only runs up to two iterations. This is confusing to the reader and unhelpful to the compiler. Rewrite the cmpxchg() loop without the loop, so that a failed cmpxchg() implies that there is contention and we just need to write to _Q_LOCKED_VAL without considering the rest of the lockword. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-7-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Remove duplicate clear_pending() function from PV code

2018-12-21T13:13:09Z

commit 3bea9adc96842b8a7345c7fb202c16ae9c8d5b25 upstream. The native clear_pending() function is identical to the PV version, so the latter can simply be removed. This fixes the build for systems with >= 16K CPUs using the PV lock implementation. Reported-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180427101619.GB21705@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Remove unbounded cmpxchg() loop from locking slowpath

2018-12-21T13:13:08Z

commit 59fb586b4a07b4e1a0ee577140ab4842ba451acd upstream. The qspinlock locking slowpath utilises a "pending" bit as a simple form of an embedded test-and-set lock that can avoid the overhead of explicit queuing in cases where the lock is held but uncontended. This bit is managed using a cmpxchg() loop which tries to transition the uncontended lock word from (0,0,0) -> (0,0,1) or (0,0,1) -> (0,1,1). Unfortunately, the cmpxchg() loop is unbounded and lockers can be starved indefinitely if the lock word is seen to oscillate between unlocked (0,0,0) and locked (0,0,1). This could happen if concurrent lockers are able to take the lock in the cmpxchg() loop without queuing and pass it around amongst themselves. This patch fixes the problem by unconditionally setting _Q_PENDING_VAL using atomic_fetch_or, and then inspecting the old value to see whether we need to spin on the current lock owner, or whether we now effectively hold the lock. The tricky scenario is when concurrent lockers end up queuing on the lock and the lock becomes available, causing us to see a lockword of (n,0,0). With pending now set, simply queuing could lead to deadlock as the head of the queue may not have observed the pending flag being cleared. Conversely, if the head of the queue did observe pending being cleared, then it could transition the lock from (n,0,0) -> (0,0,1) meaning that any attempt to "undo" our setting of the pending bit could race with a concurrent locker trying to set it. We handle this race by preserving the pending bit when taking the lock after reaching the head of the queue and leaving the tail entry intact if we saw pending set, because we know that the tail is going to be updated shortly. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Merge 'struct __qspinlock' into 'struct qspinlock'

2018-12-21T13:13:08Z

commit 625e88be1f41b53cec55827c984e4a89ea8ee9f9 upstream. 'struct __qspinlock' provides a handy union of fields so that subcomponents of the lockword can be accessed by name, without having to manage shifts and masks explicitly and take endianness into account. This is useful in qspinlock.h and also potentially in arch headers, so move the 'struct __qspinlock' into 'struct qspinlock' and kill the extra definition. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Acked-by: Boqun Feng Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-3-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locking/qspinlock: Bound spinning on pending->locked transition in slowpath

2018-12-21T13:13:08Z

commit 6512276d97b160d90b53285bd06f7f201459a7e3 upstream. If a locker taking the qspinlock slowpath reads a lock value indicating that only the pending bit is set, then it will spin whilst the concurrent pending->locked transition takes effect. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a transition will ever be observed since concurrent lockers could continuously set pending and hand over the lock amongst themselves, leading to starvation. Whilst this would probably resolve in practice, it means that it is not possible to prove liveness properties about the lock and means that lock acquisition time is unbounded. Rather than removing the pending->locked spinning from the slowpath altogether (which has been shown to heavily penalise a 2-threaded locking stress test on x86), this patch replaces the explicit spinning with a call to atomic_cond_read_relaxed and allows the architecture to provide a bound on the number of spins. For architectures that can respond to changes in cacheline state in their smp_cond_load implementation, it should be sufficient to use the default bound of 1. Suggested-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Acked-by: Waiman Long Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1524738868-31318-4-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin