2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery
While the timeout logic provides guarantees for the waiter's forward
progress, the time until a stalling waiter unblocks can still be long.
The default timeout of 1/4 sec can be excessively long for some use
cases. Additionally, custom timeouts may exacerbate recovery time.
Introduce logic to detect common cases of deadlocks and perform quicker
recovery. This is done by dividing the time from entry into the locking
slow path until the timeout into intervals of 1 ms. Then, after each
interval elapses, deadlock detection is performed, while also polling
the lock word to ensure we can quickly break out of the detection logic
and proceed with lock acquisition.
A 'held_locks' table is maintained per-CPU where the entry at the bottom
denotes a lock being waited for or already taken. Entries coming before
it denote locks that are already held. The current CPU's table can thus
be looked at to detect AA deadlocks. The tables from other CPUs can be
looked at to discover ABBA situations. Finally, when a matching entry
for the lock being taken on the current CPU is found on some other CPU,
a deadlock situation is detected. This function can take a long time,
therefore the lock word is constantly polled in each loop iteration to
ensure we can preempt detection and proceed with lock acquisition, using
the is_lock_released check.
We set 'spin' member of rqspinlock_timeout struct to 0 to trigger
deadlock checks immediately to perform faster recovery.
Note: Extending lock word size by 4 bytes to record owner CPU can allow
faster detection for ABBA. It is typically the owner which participates
in a ABBA situation. However, to keep compatibility with existing lock
words in the kernel (struct qspinlock), and given deadlocks are a rare
event triggered by bugs, we choose to favor compatibility over faster
detection.
The release_held_lock_entry function requires an smp_wmb, while the
release store on unlock will provide the necessary ordering for us. Add
comments to document the subtleties of why this is correct. It is
possible for stores to be reordered still, but in the context of the
deadlock detection algorithm, a release barrier is sufficient and
needn't be stronger for unlock's case.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-13-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:29 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
bpf: Introduce rqspinlock kfuncs
Introduce four new kfuncs, bpf_res_spin_lock, and bpf_res_spin_unlock,
and their irqsave/irqrestore variants, which wrap the rqspinlock APIs.
bpf_res_spin_lock returns a conditional result, depending on whether the
lock was acquired (NULL is returned when lock acquisition succeeds,
non-NULL upon failure). The memory pointed to by the returned pointer
upon failure can be dereferenced after the NULL check to obtain the
error code.
Instead of using the old bpf_spin_lock type, introduce a new type with
the same layout, and the same alignment, but a different name to avoid
type confusion.
Preemption is disabled upon successful lock acquisition, however IRQs
are not. Special kfuncs can be introduced later to allow disabling IRQs
when taking a spin lock. Resilient locks are safe against AA deadlocks,
hence not disabling IRQs currently does not allow violation of kernel
safety.
__irq_flag annotation is used to accept IRQ flags for the IRQ-variants,
with the same semantics as existing bpf_local_irq_{save, restore}.
These kfuncs will require additional verifier-side support in subsequent
commits, to allow programs to hold multiple locks at the same time.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-23-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-01-13 16:22:28 +11:00
|
|
|
|
bpf: Introduce rqspinlock kfuncs
Introduce four new kfuncs, bpf_res_spin_lock, and bpf_res_spin_unlock,
and their irqsave/irqrestore variants, which wrap the rqspinlock APIs.
bpf_res_spin_lock returns a conditional result, depending on whether the
lock was acquired (NULL is returned when lock acquisition succeeds,
non-NULL upon failure). The memory pointed to by the returned pointer
upon failure can be dereferenced after the NULL check to obtain the
error code.
Instead of using the old bpf_spin_lock type, introduce a new type with
the same layout, and the same alignment, but a different name to avoid
type confusion.
Preemption is disabled upon successful lock acquisition, however IRQs
are not. Special kfuncs can be introduced later to allow disabling IRQs
when taking a spin lock. Resilient locks are safe against AA deadlocks,
hence not disabling IRQs currently does not allow violation of kernel
safety.
__irq_flag annotation is used to accept IRQ flags for the IRQ-variants,
with the same semantics as existing bpf_local_irq_{save, restore}.
These kfuncs will require additional verifier-side support in subsequent
commits, to allow programs to hold multiple locks at the same time.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-23-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:38 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:29 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:29 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:29 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:29 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:30 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:23 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery
While the timeout logic provides guarantees for the waiter's forward
progress, the time until a stalling waiter unblocks can still be long.
The default timeout of 1/4 sec can be excessively long for some use
cases. Additionally, custom timeouts may exacerbate recovery time.
Introduce logic to detect common cases of deadlocks and perform quicker
recovery. This is done by dividing the time from entry into the locking
slow path until the timeout into intervals of 1 ms. Then, after each
interval elapses, deadlock detection is performed, while also polling
the lock word to ensure we can quickly break out of the detection logic
and proceed with lock acquisition.
A 'held_locks' table is maintained per-CPU where the entry at the bottom
denotes a lock being waited for or already taken. Entries coming before
it denote locks that are already held. The current CPU's table can thus
be looked at to detect AA deadlocks. The tables from other CPUs can be
looked at to discover ABBA situations. Finally, when a matching entry
for the lock being taken on the current CPU is found on some other CPU,
a deadlock situation is detected. This function can take a long time,
therefore the lock word is constantly polled in each loop iteration to
ensure we can preempt detection and proceed with lock acquisition, using
the is_lock_released check.
We set 'spin' member of rqspinlock_timeout struct to 0 to trigger
deadlock checks immediately to perform faster recovery.
Note: Extending lock word size by 4 bytes to record owner CPU can allow
faster detection for ABBA. It is typically the owner which participates
in a ABBA situation. However, to keep compatibility with existing lock
words in the kernel (struct qspinlock), and given deadlocks are a rare
event triggered by bugs, we choose to favor compatibility over faster
detection.
The release_held_lock_entry function requires an smp_wmb, while the
release store on unlock will provide the necessary ordering for us. Add
comments to document the subtleties of why this is correct. It is
possible for stores to be reordered still, but in the context of the
deadlock detection algorithm, a release barrier is sufficient and
needn't be stronger for unlock's case.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-13-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery
While the timeout logic provides guarantees for the waiter's forward
progress, the time until a stalling waiter unblocks can still be long.
The default timeout of 1/4 sec can be excessively long for some use
cases. Additionally, custom timeouts may exacerbate recovery time.
Introduce logic to detect common cases of deadlocks and perform quicker
recovery. This is done by dividing the time from entry into the locking
slow path until the timeout into intervals of 1 ms. Then, after each
interval elapses, deadlock detection is performed, while also polling
the lock word to ensure we can quickly break out of the detection logic
and proceed with lock acquisition.
A 'held_locks' table is maintained per-CPU where the entry at the bottom
denotes a lock being waited for or already taken. Entries coming before
it denote locks that are already held. The current CPU's table can thus
be looked at to detect AA deadlocks. The tables from other CPUs can be
looked at to discover ABBA situations. Finally, when a matching entry
for the lock being taken on the current CPU is found on some other CPU,
a deadlock situation is detected. This function can take a long time,
therefore the lock word is constantly polled in each loop iteration to
ensure we can preempt detection and proceed with lock acquisition, using
the is_lock_released check.
We set 'spin' member of rqspinlock_timeout struct to 0 to trigger
deadlock checks immediately to perform faster recovery.
Note: Extending lock word size by 4 bytes to record owner CPU can allow
faster detection for ABBA. It is typically the owner which participates
in a ABBA situation. However, to keep compatibility with existing lock
words in the kernel (struct qspinlock), and given deadlocks are a rare
event triggered by bugs, we choose to favor compatibility over faster
detection.
The release_held_lock_entry function requires an smp_wmb, while the
release store on unlock will provide the necessary ordering for us. Add
comments to document the subtleties of why this is correct. It is
possible for stores to be reordered still, but in the context of the
deadlock detection algorithm, a release barrier is sufficient and
needn't be stronger for unlock's case.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-13-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rqspinlock: Add deadlock detection and recovery
While the timeout logic provides guarantees for the waiter's forward
progress, the time until a stalling waiter unblocks can still be long.
The default timeout of 1/4 sec can be excessively long for some use
cases. Additionally, custom timeouts may exacerbate recovery time.
Introduce logic to detect common cases of deadlocks and perform quicker
recovery. This is done by dividing the time from entry into the locking
slow path until the timeout into intervals of 1 ms. Then, after each
interval elapses, deadlock detection is performed, while also polling
the lock word to ensure we can quickly break out of the detection logic
and proceed with lock acquisition.
A 'held_locks' table is maintained per-CPU where the entry at the bottom
denotes a lock being waited for or already taken. Entries coming before
it denote locks that are already held. The current CPU's table can thus
be looked at to detect AA deadlocks. The tables from other CPUs can be
looked at to discover ABBA situations. Finally, when a matching entry
for the lock being taken on the current CPU is found on some other CPU,
a deadlock situation is detected. This function can take a long time,
therefore the lock word is constantly polled in each loop iteration to
ensure we can preempt detection and proceed with lock acquisition, using
the is_lock_released check.
We set 'spin' member of rqspinlock_timeout struct to 0 to trigger
deadlock checks immediately to perform faster recovery.
Note: Extending lock word size by 4 bytes to record owner CPU can allow
faster detection for ABBA. It is typically the owner which participates
in a ABBA situation. However, to keep compatibility with existing lock
words in the kernel (struct qspinlock), and given deadlocks are a rare
event triggered by bugs, we choose to favor compatibility over faster
detection.
The release_held_lock_entry function requires an smp_wmb, while the
release store on unlock will provide the necessary ordering for us. Add
comments to document the subtleties of why this is correct. It is
possible for stores to be reordered still, but in the context of the
deadlock detection algorithm, a release barrier is sufficient and
needn't be stronger for unlock's case.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250316040541.108729-13-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
2025-03-15 21:05:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-01-22 03:59:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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>
2025-11-28 23:27:57 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-15 21:05:21 -07:00
|
|
|
|
