rqspinlock: Enclose lock/unlock within lock entry acquisitions

Ritesh reported that timeouts occurred frequently for rqspinlock despite
reentrancy on the same lock on the same CPU in [0]. This patch closes
one of the races leading to this behavior, and reduces the frequency of
timeouts.

We currently have a tiny window between the fast-path cmpxchg and the
grabbing of the lock entry where an NMI could land, attempt the same
lock that was just acquired, and end up timing out. This is not ideal.
Instead, move the lock entry acquisition from the fast path to before
the cmpxchg, and remove the grabbing of the lock entry in the slow path,
assuming it was already taken by the fast path. The TAS fallback is
invoked directly without being preceded by the typical fast path,
therefore we must continue to grab the deadlock detection entry in that
case.

Case on lock leading to missed AA:

cmpxchg lock A
<NMI>
... rqspinlock acquisition of A
... timeout
</NMI>
grab_held_lock_entry(A)

There is a similar case when unlocking the lock. If the NMI lands
between the WRITE_ONCE and smp_store_release, it is possible that we end
up in a situation where the NMI fails to diagnose the AA condition,
leading to a timeout.

Case on unlock leading to missed AA:

WRITE_ONCE(rqh->locks[rqh->cnt - 1], NULL)
<NMI>
... rqspinlock acquisition of A
... timeout
</NMI>
smp_store_release(A->locked, 0)

The patch changes the order on unlock to smp_store_release() succeeded
by WRITE_ONCE() of NULL. This avoids the missed AA detection described
above, but may lead to a false positive if the NMI lands between these
two statements, which is acceptable (and preferred over a timeout).

The original intention of the reverse order on unlock was to prevent the
following possible misdiagnosis of an ABBA scenario:

grab entry A
lock A
grab entry B
lock B
unlock B
   smp_store_release(B->locked, 0)
							grab entry B
							lock B
							grab entry A
							lock A
							! <detect ABBA>
   WRITE_ONCE(rqh->locks[rqh->cnt - 1], NULL)

If the store release were is after the WRITE_ONCE, the other CPU would
not observe B in the table of the CPU unlocking the lock B.  However,
since the threads are obviously participating in an ABBA deadlock, it
is no longer appealing to use the order above since it may lead to a
250 ms timeout due to missed AA detection.

  [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAH6OuBTjG+N=+GGwcpOUbeDN563oz4iVcU3rbse68egp9wj9_A@mail.gmail.com

Fixes: 0d80e7f951be ("rqspinlock: Choose trylock fallback for NMI waiters")
Reported-by: Ritesh Oedayrajsingh Varma <ritesh@superluminal.eu>
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20251128232802.1031906-2-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions