2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
* Fast Userspace Mutexes ( which I call " Futexes! " ) .
* ( C ) Rusty Russell , IBM 2002
*
* Generalized futexes , futex requeueing , misc fixes by Ingo Molnar
* ( C ) Copyright 2003 Red Hat Inc , All Rights Reserved
*
* Removed page pinning , fix privately mapped COW pages and other cleanups
* ( C ) Copyright 2003 , 2004 Jamie Lokier
*
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
* Robust futex support started by Ingo Molnar
* ( C ) Copyright 2006 Red Hat Inc , All Rights Reserved
* Thanks to Thomas Gleixner for suggestions , analysis and fixes .
*
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
* PI - futex support started by Ingo Molnar and Thomas Gleixner
* Copyright ( C ) 2006 Red Hat , Inc . , Ingo Molnar < mingo @ redhat . com >
* Copyright ( C ) 2006 Timesys Corp . , Thomas Gleixner < tglx @ timesys . com >
*
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
* PRIVATE futexes by Eric Dumazet
* Copyright ( C ) 2007 Eric Dumazet < dada1 @ cosmosbay . com >
*
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
* Requeue - PI support by Darren Hart < dvhltc @ us . ibm . com >
* Copyright ( C ) IBM Corporation , 2009
* Thanks to Thomas Gleixner for conceptual design and careful reviews .
*
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* Thanks to Ben LaHaise for yelling " hashed waitqueues " loudly
* enough at me , Linus for the original ( flawed ) idea , Matthew
* Kirkwood for proof - of - concept implementation .
*
* " The futexes are also cursed. "
* " But they come in a choice of three flavours! "
*
* This program is free software ; you can redistribute it and / or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation ; either version 2 of the License , or
* ( at your option ) any later version .
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful ,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY ; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE . See the
* GNU General Public License for more details .
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program ; if not , write to the Free Software
* Foundation , Inc . , 59 Temple Place , Suite 330 , Boston , MA 02111 - 1307 USA
*/
# include <linux/slab.h>
# include <linux/poll.h>
# include <linux/fs.h>
# include <linux/file.h>
# include <linux/jhash.h>
# include <linux/init.h>
# include <linux/futex.h>
# include <linux/mount.h>
# include <linux/pagemap.h>
# include <linux/syscalls.h>
2005-05-01 19:59:14 +04:00
# include <linux/signal.h>
2007-05-08 11:26:42 +04:00
# include <linux/module.h>
2007-10-17 10:30:13 +04:00
# include <linux/magic.h>
2007-10-19 10:40:14 +04:00
# include <linux/pid.h>
# include <linux/nsproxy.h>
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
# include <asm/futex.h>
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
# include "rtmutex_common.h"
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
int __read_mostly futex_cmpxchg_enabled ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
# define FUTEX_HASHBITS (CONFIG_BASE_SMALL ? 4 : 8)
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
/*
* Futex flags used to encode options to functions and preserve them across
* restarts .
*/
# define FLAGS_SHARED 0x01
# define FLAGS_CLOCKRT 0x02
# define FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT 0x04
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* Priority Inheritance state :
*/
struct futex_pi_state {
/*
* list of ' owned ' pi_state instances - these have to be
* cleaned up in do_exit ( ) if the task exits prematurely :
*/
struct list_head list ;
/*
* The PI object :
*/
struct rt_mutex pi_mutex ;
struct task_struct * owner ;
atomic_t refcount ;
union futex_key key ;
} ;
2009-09-22 09:30:30 +04:00
/**
* struct futex_q - The hashed futex queue entry , one per waiting task
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* @ list : priority - sorted list of tasks waiting on this futex
2009-09-22 09:30:30 +04:00
* @ task : the task waiting on the futex
* @ lock_ptr : the hash bucket lock
* @ key : the key the futex is hashed on
* @ pi_state : optional priority inheritance state
* @ rt_waiter : rt_waiter storage for use with requeue_pi
* @ requeue_pi_key : the requeue_pi target futex key
* @ bitset : bitset for the optional bitmasked wakeup
*
* We use this hashed waitqueue , instead of a normal wait_queue_t , so
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* we can wake only the relevant ones ( hashed queues may be shared ) .
*
* A futex_q has a woken state , just like tasks have TASK_RUNNING .
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
* It is considered woken when plist_node_empty ( & q - > list ) | | q - > lock_ptr = = 0.
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* The order of wakeup is always to make the first condition true , then
2009-09-22 09:30:30 +04:00
* the second .
*
* PI futexes are typically woken before they are removed from the hash list via
* the rt_mutex code . See unqueue_me_pi ( ) .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
struct futex_q {
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_node list ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-09-22 09:30:30 +04:00
struct task_struct * task ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
spinlock_t * lock_ptr ;
union futex_key key ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
struct rt_mutex_waiter * rt_waiter ;
2009-08-14 04:36:53 +04:00
union futex_key * requeue_pi_key ;
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
u32 bitset ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
} ;
2010-11-09 00:40:28 +03:00
static const struct futex_q futex_q_init = {
/* list gets initialized in queue_me()*/
. key = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ,
. bitset = FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY
} ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
2009-03-12 10:55:37 +03:00
* Hash buckets are shared by all the futex_keys that hash to the same
* location . Each key may have multiple futex_q structures , one for each task
* waiting on a futex .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
struct futex_hash_bucket {
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
spinlock_t lock ;
struct plist_head chain ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
} ;
static struct futex_hash_bucket futex_queues [ 1 < < FUTEX_HASHBITS ] ;
/*
* We hash on the keys returned from get_futex_key ( see below ) .
*/
static struct futex_hash_bucket * hash_futex ( union futex_key * key )
{
u32 hash = jhash2 ( ( u32 * ) & key - > both . word ,
( sizeof ( key - > both . word ) + sizeof ( key - > both . ptr ) ) / 4 ,
key - > both . offset ) ;
return & futex_queues [ hash & ( ( 1 < < FUTEX_HASHBITS ) - 1 ) ] ;
}
/*
* Return 1 if two futex_keys are equal , 0 otherwise .
*/
static inline int match_futex ( union futex_key * key1 , union futex_key * key2 )
{
2009-10-14 21:12:39 +04:00
return ( key1 & & key2
& & key1 - > both . word = = key2 - > both . word
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
& & key1 - > both . ptr = = key2 - > both . ptr
& & key1 - > both . offset = = key2 - > both . offset ) ;
}
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
/*
* Take a reference to the resource addressed by a key .
* Can be called while holding spinlocks .
*
*/
static void get_futex_key_refs ( union futex_key * key )
{
if ( ! key - > both . ptr )
return ;
switch ( key - > both . offset & ( FUT_OFF_INODE | FUT_OFF_MMSHARED ) ) {
case FUT_OFF_INODE :
2010-10-23 19:11:40 +04:00
ihold ( key - > shared . inode ) ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
break ;
case FUT_OFF_MMSHARED :
atomic_inc ( & key - > private . mm - > mm_count ) ;
break ;
}
}
/*
* Drop a reference to the resource addressed by a key .
* The hash bucket spinlock must not be held .
*/
static void drop_futex_key_refs ( union futex_key * key )
{
2008-12-30 06:43:21 +03:00
if ( ! key - > both . ptr ) {
/* If we're here then we tried to put a key we failed to get */
WARN_ON_ONCE ( 1 ) ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
return ;
2008-12-30 06:43:21 +03:00
}
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
switch ( key - > both . offset & ( FUT_OFF_INODE | FUT_OFF_MMSHARED ) ) {
case FUT_OFF_INODE :
iput ( key - > shared . inode ) ;
break ;
case FUT_OFF_MMSHARED :
mmdrop ( key - > private . mm ) ;
break ;
}
}
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
/**
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* get_futex_key ( ) - Get parameters which are the keys for a futex
* @ uaddr : virtual address of the futex
* @ fshared : 0 for a PROCESS_PRIVATE futex , 1 for PROCESS_SHARED
* @ key : address where result is stored .
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
* @ rw : mapping needs to be read / write ( values : VERIFY_READ ,
* VERIFY_WRITE )
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
*
* Returns a negative error code or 0
* The key words are stored in * key on success .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*
2006-12-08 13:36:43 +03:00
* For shared mappings , it ' s ( page - > index , vma - > vm_file - > f_path . dentry - > d_inode ,
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* offset_within_page ) . For private mappings , it ' s ( uaddr , current - > mm ) .
* We can usually work out the index without swapping in the page .
*
2009-03-12 10:55:37 +03:00
* lock_page ( ) might sleep , the caller should not hold a spinlock .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2009-05-18 23:20:10 +04:00
static int
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
get_futex_key ( u32 __user * uaddr , int fshared , union futex_key * key , int rw )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
unsigned long address = ( unsigned long ) uaddr ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
struct mm_struct * mm = current - > mm ;
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
struct page * page , * page_head ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
int err , ro = 0 ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
* The futex address must be " naturally " aligned .
*/
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
key - > both . offset = address % PAGE_SIZE ;
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ( address % sizeof ( u32 ) ) ! = 0 ) )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return - EINVAL ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
address - = key - > both . offset ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
/*
* PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes are fast .
* As the mm cannot disappear under us and the ' key ' only needs
* virtual address , we dont even have to find the underlying vma .
* Note : We do have to check ' uaddr ' is a valid user address ,
* but access_ok ( ) should be faster than find_vma ( )
*/
if ( ! fshared ) {
futexes: Remove rw parameter from get_futex_key()
Currently, futexes have two problem:
A) The current futex code doesn't handle private file mappings properly.
get_futex_key() uses PageAnon() to distinguish file and
anon, which can cause the following bad scenario:
1) thread-A call futex(private-mapping, FUTEX_WAIT), it
sleeps on file mapping object.
2) thread-B writes a variable and it makes it cow.
3) thread-B calls futex(private-mapping, FUTEX_WAKE), it
wakes up blocked thread on the anonymous page. (but it's nothing)
B) Current futex code doesn't handle zero page properly.
Read mode get_user_pages() can return zero page, but current
futex code doesn't handle it at all. Then, zero page makes
infinite loop internally.
The solution is to use write mode get_user_page() always for
page lookup. It prevents the lookup of both file page of private
mappings and zero page.
Performance concerns:
Probaly very little, because glibc always initialize variables
for futex before to call futex(). It means glibc users never see
the overhead of this patch.
Compatibility concerns:
This patch has few compatibility issues. After this patch,
FUTEX_WAIT require writable access to futex variables (read-only
mappings makes EFAULT). But practically it's not a problem,
glibc always initalizes variables for futexes explicitly - nobody
uses read-only mappings.
Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
LKML-Reference: <20100105162633.45A2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2010-01-05 10:32:43 +03:00
if ( unlikely ( ! access_ok ( VERIFY_WRITE , uaddr , sizeof ( u32 ) ) ) )
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
return - EFAULT ;
key - > private . mm = mm ;
key - > private . address = address ;
2008-09-30 14:33:07 +04:00
get_futex_key_refs ( key ) ;
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
return 0 ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
again :
futexes: Remove rw parameter from get_futex_key()
Currently, futexes have two problem:
A) The current futex code doesn't handle private file mappings properly.
get_futex_key() uses PageAnon() to distinguish file and
anon, which can cause the following bad scenario:
1) thread-A call futex(private-mapping, FUTEX_WAIT), it
sleeps on file mapping object.
2) thread-B writes a variable and it makes it cow.
3) thread-B calls futex(private-mapping, FUTEX_WAKE), it
wakes up blocked thread on the anonymous page. (but it's nothing)
B) Current futex code doesn't handle zero page properly.
Read mode get_user_pages() can return zero page, but current
futex code doesn't handle it at all. Then, zero page makes
infinite loop internally.
The solution is to use write mode get_user_page() always for
page lookup. It prevents the lookup of both file page of private
mappings and zero page.
Performance concerns:
Probaly very little, because glibc always initialize variables
for futex before to call futex(). It means glibc users never see
the overhead of this patch.
Compatibility concerns:
This patch has few compatibility issues. After this patch,
FUTEX_WAIT require writable access to futex variables (read-only
mappings makes EFAULT). But practically it's not a problem,
glibc always initalizes variables for futexes explicitly - nobody
uses read-only mappings.
Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
LKML-Reference: <20100105162633.45A2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2010-01-05 10:32:43 +03:00
err = get_user_pages_fast ( address , 1 , 1 , & page ) ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
/*
* If write access is not required ( eg . FUTEX_WAIT ) , try
* and get read - only access .
*/
if ( err = = - EFAULT & & rw = = VERIFY_READ ) {
err = get_user_pages_fast ( address , 1 , 0 , & page ) ;
ro = 1 ;
}
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
if ( err < 0 )
return err ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
else
err = 0 ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
# ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
page_head = page ;
if ( unlikely ( PageTail ( page ) ) ) {
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
put_page ( page ) ;
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
/* serialize against __split_huge_page_splitting() */
local_irq_disable ( ) ;
if ( likely ( __get_user_pages_fast ( address , 1 , 1 , & page ) = = 1 ) ) {
page_head = compound_head ( page ) ;
/*
* page_head is valid pointer but we must pin
* it before taking the PG_lock and / or
* PG_compound_lock . The moment we re - enable
* irqs __split_huge_page_splitting ( ) can
* return and the head page can be freed from
* under us . We can ' t take the PG_lock and / or
* PG_compound_lock on a page that could be
* freed from under us .
*/
if ( page ! = page_head ) {
get_page ( page_head ) ;
put_page ( page ) ;
}
local_irq_enable ( ) ;
} else {
local_irq_enable ( ) ;
goto again ;
}
}
# else
page_head = compound_head ( page ) ;
if ( page ! = page_head ) {
get_page ( page_head ) ;
put_page ( page ) ;
}
# endif
lock_page ( page_head ) ;
if ( ! page_head - > mapping ) {
unlock_page ( page_head ) ;
put_page ( page_head ) ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
/*
* ZERO_PAGE pages don ' t have a mapping . Avoid a busy loop
* trying to find one . RW mapping would have COW ' d ( and thus
* have a mapping ) so this page is RO and won ' t ever change .
*/
if ( ( page_head = = ZERO_PAGE ( address ) ) )
return - EFAULT ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
goto again ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
* Private mappings are handled in a simple way .
*
* NOTE : When userspace waits on a MAP_SHARED mapping , even if
* it ' s a read - only handle , it ' s expected that futexes attach to
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
* the object not the particular process .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
if ( PageAnon ( page_head ) ) {
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
/*
* A RO anonymous page will never change and thus doesn ' t make
* sense for futex operations .
*/
if ( ro ) {
err = - EFAULT ;
goto out ;
}
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
key - > both . offset | = FUT_OFF_MMSHARED ; /* ref taken on mm */
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
key - > private . mm = mm ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
key - > private . address = address ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
} else {
key - > both . offset | = FUT_OFF_INODE ; /* inode-based key */
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
key - > shared . inode = page_head - > mapping - > host ;
key - > shared . pgoff = page_head - > index ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
get_futex_key_refs ( key ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
out :
2011-01-14 02:46:34 +03:00
unlock_page ( page_head ) ;
put_page ( page_head ) ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
return err ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
static inline void put_futex_key ( union futex_key * key )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
drop_futex_key_refs ( key ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
/**
* fault_in_user_writeable ( ) - Fault in user address and verify RW access
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
* @ uaddr : pointer to faulting user space address
*
* Slow path to fixup the fault we just took in the atomic write
* access to @ uaddr .
*
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* We have no generic implementation of a non - destructive write to the
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
* user address . We know that we faulted in the atomic pagefault
* disabled section so we can as well avoid the # PF overhead by
* calling get_user_pages ( ) right away .
*/
static int fault_in_user_writeable ( u32 __user * uaddr )
{
2009-12-08 15:19:42 +03:00
struct mm_struct * mm = current - > mm ;
int ret ;
down_read ( & mm - > mmap_sem ) ;
mm/futex: fix futex writes on archs with SW tracking of dirty & young
I haven't reproduced it myself but the fail scenario is that on such
machines (notably ARM and some embedded powerpc), if you manage to hit
that futex path on a writable page whose dirty bit has gone from the PTE,
you'll livelock inside the kernel from what I can tell.
It will go in a loop of trying the atomic access, failing, trying gup to
"fix it up", getting succcess from gup, go back to the atomic access,
failing again because dirty wasn't fixed etc...
So I think you essentially hang in the kernel.
The scenario is probably rare'ish because affected architecture are
embedded and tend to not swap much (if at all) so we probably rarely hit
the case where dirty is missing or young is missing, but I think Shan has
a piece of SW that can reliably reproduce it using a shared writable
mapping & fork or something like that.
On archs who use SW tracking of dirty & young, a page without dirty is
effectively mapped read-only and a page without young unaccessible in the
PTE.
Additionally, some architectures might lazily flush the TLB when relaxing
write protection (by doing only a local flush), and expect a fault to
invalidate the stale entry if it's still present on another processor.
The futex code assumes that if the "in_atomic()" access -EFAULT's, it can
"fix it up" by causing get_user_pages() which would then be equivalent to
taking the fault.
However that isn't the case. get_user_pages() will not call
handle_mm_fault() in the case where the PTE seems to have the right
permissions, regardless of the dirty and young state. It will eventually
update those bits ... in the struct page, but not in the PTE.
Additionally, it will not handle the lazy TLB flushing that can be
required by some architectures in the fault case.
Basically, gup is the wrong interface for the job. The patch provides a
more appropriate one which boils down to just calling handle_mm_fault()
since what we are trying to do is simulate a real page fault.
The futex code currently attempts to write to user memory within a
pagefault disabled section, and if that fails, tries to fix it up using
get_user_pages().
This doesn't work on archs where the dirty and young bits are maintained
by software, since they will gate access permission in the TLB, and will
not be updated by gup().
In addition, there's an expectation on some archs that a spurious write
fault triggers a local TLB flush, and that is missing from the picture as
well.
I decided that adding those "features" to gup() would be too much for this
already too complex function, and instead added a new simpler
fixup_user_fault() which is essentially a wrapper around handle_mm_fault()
which the futex code can call.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix some nits Darren saw, fiddle comment layout]
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Reported-by: Shan Hai <haishan.bai@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Shan Hai <haishan.bai@gmail.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren.hart@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2011-07-26 04:12:32 +04:00
ret = fixup_user_fault ( current , mm , ( unsigned long ) uaddr ,
FAULT_FLAG_WRITE ) ;
2009-12-08 15:19:42 +03:00
up_read ( & mm - > mmap_sem ) ;
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
return ret < 0 ? ret : 0 ;
}
2009-04-04 00:39:42 +04:00
/**
* futex_top_waiter ( ) - Return the highest priority waiter on a futex
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* @ hb : the hash bucket the futex_q ' s reside in
* @ key : the futex key ( to distinguish it from other futex futex_q ' s )
2009-04-04 00:39:42 +04:00
*
* Must be called with the hb lock held .
*/
static struct futex_q * futex_top_waiter ( struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ,
union futex_key * key )
{
struct futex_q * this ;
plist_for_each_entry ( this , & hb - > chain , list ) {
if ( match_futex ( & this - > key , key ) )
return this ;
}
return NULL ;
}
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
static int cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( u32 * curval , u32 __user * uaddr ,
u32 uval , u32 newval )
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
{
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
int ret ;
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
pagefault_disable ( ) ;
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
ret = futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic ( curval , uaddr , uval , newval ) ;
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
pagefault_enable ( ) ;
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
return ret ;
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
}
static int get_futex_value_locked ( u32 * dest , u32 __user * from )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
int ret ;
2006-12-07 07:32:20 +03:00
pagefault_disable ( ) ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
ret = __copy_from_user_inatomic ( dest , from , sizeof ( u32 ) ) ;
2006-12-07 07:32:20 +03:00
pagefault_enable ( ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return ret ? - EFAULT : 0 ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* PI code :
*/
static int refill_pi_state_cache ( void )
{
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state ;
if ( likely ( current - > pi_state_cache ) )
return 0 ;
2006-12-07 07:38:51 +03:00
pi_state = kzalloc ( sizeof ( * pi_state ) , GFP_KERNEL ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( ! pi_state )
return - ENOMEM ;
INIT_LIST_HEAD ( & pi_state - > list ) ;
/* pi_mutex gets initialized later */
pi_state - > owner = NULL ;
atomic_set ( & pi_state - > refcount , 1 ) ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
pi_state - > key = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
current - > pi_state_cache = pi_state ;
return 0 ;
}
static struct futex_pi_state * alloc_pi_state ( void )
{
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state = current - > pi_state_cache ;
WARN_ON ( ! pi_state ) ;
current - > pi_state_cache = NULL ;
return pi_state ;
}
static void free_pi_state ( struct futex_pi_state * pi_state )
{
if ( ! atomic_dec_and_test ( & pi_state - > refcount ) )
return ;
/*
* If pi_state - > owner is NULL , the owner is most probably dying
* and has cleaned up the pi_state already
*/
if ( pi_state - > owner ) {
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
list_del_init ( & pi_state - > list ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
rt_mutex_proxy_unlock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex , pi_state - > owner ) ;
}
if ( current - > pi_state_cache )
kfree ( pi_state ) ;
else {
/*
* pi_state - > list is already empty .
* clear pi_state - > owner .
* refcount is at 0 - put it back to 1.
*/
pi_state - > owner = NULL ;
atomic_set ( & pi_state - > refcount , 1 ) ;
current - > pi_state_cache = pi_state ;
}
}
/*
* Look up the task based on what TID userspace gave us .
* We dont trust it .
*/
static struct task_struct * futex_find_get_task ( pid_t pid )
{
struct task_struct * p ;
2006-09-29 13:00:55 +04:00
rcu_read_lock ( ) ;
2007-10-19 10:40:16 +04:00
p = find_task_by_vpid ( pid ) ;
2010-06-30 11:51:19 +04:00
if ( p )
get_task_struct ( p ) ;
2007-06-23 13:48:40 +04:00
2006-09-29 13:00:55 +04:00
rcu_read_unlock ( ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return p ;
}
/*
* This task is holding PI mutexes at exit time = > bad .
* Kernel cleans up PI - state , but userspace is likely hosed .
* ( Robust - futex cleanup is separate and might save the day for userspace . )
*/
void exit_pi_state_list ( struct task_struct * curr )
{
struct list_head * next , * head = & curr - > pi_state_list ;
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
union futex_key key = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( ! futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
return ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* We are a ZOMBIE and nobody can enqueue itself on
* pi_state_list anymore , but we have to be careful
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
* versus waiters unqueueing themselves :
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
*/
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
while ( ! list_empty ( head ) ) {
next = head - > next ;
pi_state = list_entry ( next , struct futex_pi_state , list ) ;
key = pi_state - > key ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
hb = hash_futex ( & key ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
spin_lock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
/*
* We dropped the pi - lock , so re - check whether this
* task still owns the PI - state :
*/
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( head - > next ! = next ) {
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
continue ;
}
WARN_ON ( pi_state - > owner ! = curr ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
WARN_ON ( list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
list_del_init ( & pi_state - > list ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
pi_state - > owner = NULL ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
rt_mutex_unlock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
}
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & curr - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
}
static int
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
lookup_pi_state ( u32 uval , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ,
union futex_key * key , struct futex_pi_state * * ps )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
{
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state = NULL ;
struct futex_q * this , * next ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_head * head ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
struct task_struct * p ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
pid_t pid = uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
head = & hb - > chain ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head , list ) {
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( match_futex ( & this - > key , key ) ) {
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* Another waiter already exists - bump up
* the refcount and return its pi_state :
*/
pi_state = this - > pi_state ;
2006-07-10 15:44:30 +04:00
/*
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* Userspace might have messed up non - PI and PI futexes
2006-07-10 15:44:30 +04:00
*/
if ( unlikely ( ! pi_state ) )
return - EINVAL ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! atomic_read ( & pi_state - > refcount ) ) ;
2010-02-03 11:33:05 +03:00
/*
* When pi_state - > owner is NULL then the owner died
* and another waiter is on the fly . pi_state - > owner
* is fixed up by the task which acquires
* pi_state - > rt_mutex .
*
* We do not check for pid = = 0 which can happen when
* the owner died and robust_list_exit ( ) cleared the
* TID .
*/
if ( pid & & pi_state - > owner ) {
/*
* Bail out if user space manipulated the
* futex value .
*/
if ( pid ! = task_pid_vnr ( pi_state - > owner ) )
return - EINVAL ;
}
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
atomic_inc ( & pi_state - > refcount ) ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
* ps = pi_state ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return 0 ;
}
}
/*
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
* We are the first waiter - try to look up the real owner and attach
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
* the new pi_state to it , but bail out when TID = 0
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
*/
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
if ( ! pid )
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
return - ESRCH ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
p = futex_find_get_task ( pid ) ;
2010-06-30 11:51:19 +04:00
if ( ! p )
return - ESRCH ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
/*
* We need to look at the task state flags to figure out ,
* whether the task is exiting . To protect against the do_exit
* change of the task flags , we do this protected by
* p - > pi_lock :
*/
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & p - > pi_lock ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( p - > flags & PF_EXITING ) ) {
/*
* The task is on the way out . When PF_EXITPIDONE is
* set , we know that the task has finished the
* cleanup :
*/
int ret = ( p - > flags & PF_EXITPIDONE ) ? - ESRCH : - EAGAIN ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & p - > pi_lock ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
put_task_struct ( p ) ;
return ret ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
pi_state = alloc_pi_state ( ) ;
/*
* Initialize the pi_mutex in locked state and make ' p '
* the owner of it :
*/
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex , p ) ;
/* Store the key for possible exit cleanups: */
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
pi_state - > key = * key ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
list_add ( & pi_state - > list , & p - > pi_state_list ) ;
pi_state - > owner = p ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & p - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
put_task_struct ( p ) ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
* ps = pi_state ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return 0 ;
}
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
/**
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* futex_lock_pi_atomic ( ) - Atomic work required to acquire a pi aware futex
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
* @ uaddr : the pi futex user address
* @ hb : the pi futex hash bucket
* @ key : the futex key associated with uaddr and hb
* @ ps : the pi_state pointer where we store the result of the
* lookup
* @ task : the task to perform the atomic lock work for . This will
* be " current " except in the case of requeue pi .
* @ set_waiters : force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit ( 1 ) or not ( 0 )
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
*
* Returns :
* 0 - ready to wait
* 1 - acquired the lock
* < 0 - error
*
* The hb - > lock and futex_key refs shall be held by the caller .
*/
static int futex_lock_pi_atomic ( u32 __user * uaddr , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ,
union futex_key * key ,
struct futex_pi_state * * ps ,
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
struct task_struct * task , int set_waiters )
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
{
int lock_taken , ret , ownerdied = 0 ;
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
u32 uval , newval , curval , vpid = task_pid_vnr ( task ) ;
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
retry :
ret = lock_taken = 0 ;
/*
* To avoid races , we attempt to take the lock here again
* ( by doing a 0 - > TID atomic cmpxchg ) , while holding all
* the locks . It will most likely not succeed .
*/
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
newval = vpid ;
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
if ( set_waiters )
newval | = FUTEX_WAITERS ;
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( unlikely ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr , 0 , newval ) ) )
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
return - EFAULT ;
/*
* Detect deadlocks .
*/
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
if ( ( unlikely ( ( curval & FUTEX_TID_MASK ) = = vpid ) ) )
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
return - EDEADLK ;
/*
* Surprise - we got the lock . Just return to userspace :
*/
if ( unlikely ( ! curval ) )
return 1 ;
uval = curval ;
/*
* Set the FUTEX_WAITERS flag , so the owner will know it has someone
* to wake at the next unlock .
*/
newval = curval | FUTEX_WAITERS ;
/*
* There are two cases , where a futex might have no owner ( the
* owner TID is 0 ) : OWNER_DIED . We take over the futex in this
* case . We also do an unconditional take over , when the owner
* of the futex died .
*
* This is safe as we are protected by the hash bucket lock !
*/
if ( unlikely ( ownerdied | | ! ( curval & FUTEX_TID_MASK ) ) ) {
/* Keep the OWNER_DIED bit */
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
newval = ( curval & ~ FUTEX_TID_MASK ) | vpid ;
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
ownerdied = 0 ;
lock_taken = 1 ;
}
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( unlikely ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr , uval , newval ) ) )
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
return - EFAULT ;
if ( unlikely ( curval ! = uval ) )
goto retry ;
/*
* We took the lock due to owner died take over .
*/
if ( unlikely ( lock_taken ) )
return 1 ;
/*
* We dont have the lock . Look up the PI state ( or create it if
* we are the first waiter ) :
*/
ret = lookup_pi_state ( uval , hb , key , ps ) ;
if ( unlikely ( ret ) ) {
switch ( ret ) {
case - ESRCH :
/*
* No owner found for this futex . Check if the
* OWNER_DIED bit is set to figure out whether
* this is a robust futex or not .
*/
if ( get_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr ) )
return - EFAULT ;
/*
* We simply start over in case of a robust
* futex . The code above will take the futex
* and return happy .
*/
if ( curval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ) {
ownerdied = 1 ;
goto retry ;
}
default :
break ;
}
}
return ret ;
}
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
/**
* __unqueue_futex ( ) - Remove the futex_q from its futex_hash_bucket
* @ q : The futex_q to unqueue
*
* The q - > lock_ptr must not be NULL and must be held by the caller .
*/
static void __unqueue_futex ( struct futex_q * q )
{
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2011-03-17 22:21:07 +03:00
if ( WARN_ON_SMP ( ! q - > lock_ptr | | ! spin_is_locked ( q - > lock_ptr ) )
| | WARN_ON ( plist_node_empty ( & q - > list ) ) )
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
return ;
hb = container_of ( q - > lock_ptr , struct futex_hash_bucket , lock ) ;
plist_del ( & q - > list , & hb - > chain ) ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
* The hash bucket lock must be held when this is called .
* Afterwards , the futex_q must not be accessed .
*/
static void wake_futex ( struct futex_q * q )
{
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
struct task_struct * p = q - > task ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
* We set q - > lock_ptr = NULL _before_ we wake up the task . If
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* a non - futex wake up happens on another CPU then the task
* might exit and p would dereference a non - existing task
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
* struct . Prevent this by holding a reference on p across the
* wake up .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
get_task_struct ( p ) ;
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
__unqueue_futex ( q ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
* The waiting task can free the futex_q as soon as
* q - > lock_ptr = NULL is written , without taking any locks . A
* memory barrier is required here to prevent the following
* store to lock_ptr from getting ahead of the plist_del .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2006-12-07 07:40:26 +03:00
smp_wmb ( ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
q - > lock_ptr = NULL ;
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
wake_up_state ( p , TASK_NORMAL ) ;
put_task_struct ( p ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
static int wake_futex_pi ( u32 __user * uaddr , u32 uval , struct futex_q * this )
{
struct task_struct * new_owner ;
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state = this - > pi_state ;
u32 curval , newval ;
if ( ! pi_state )
return - EINVAL ;
2010-02-02 13:40:27 +03:00
/*
* If current does not own the pi_state then the futex is
* inconsistent and user space fiddled with the futex value .
*/
if ( pi_state - > owner ! = current )
return - EINVAL ;
2009-11-17 20:22:11 +03:00
raw_spin_lock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex . wait_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
new_owner = rt_mutex_next_owner ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
/*
2011-01-06 23:08:29 +03:00
* It is possible that the next waiter ( the one that brought
* this owner to the kernel ) timed out and is no longer
* waiting on the lock .
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
*/
if ( ! new_owner )
new_owner = this - > task ;
/*
* We pass it to the next owner . ( The WAITERS bit is always
* kept enabled while there is PI state around . We must also
* preserve the owner died bit . )
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
if ( ! ( uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ) ) {
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
int ret = 0 ;
2007-10-19 10:40:14 +04:00
newval = FUTEX_WAITERS | task_pid_vnr ( new_owner ) ;
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr , uval , newval ) )
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
ret = - EFAULT ;
2007-12-05 17:46:09 +03:00
else if ( curval ! = uval )
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
ret = - EINVAL ;
if ( ret ) {
2009-11-17 20:22:11 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex . wait_lock ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
WARN_ON ( list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
list_del_init ( & pi_state - > list ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & new_owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
list_add ( & pi_state - > list , & new_owner - > pi_state_list ) ;
pi_state - > owner = new_owner ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & new_owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2006-07-29 07:16:20 +04:00
2009-11-17 20:22:11 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex . wait_lock ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
rt_mutex_unlock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
return 0 ;
}
static int unlock_futex_pi ( u32 __user * uaddr , u32 uval )
{
u32 oldval ;
/*
* There is no waiter , so we unlock the futex . The owner died
* bit has not to be preserved here . We are the owner :
*/
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & oldval , uaddr , uval , 0 ) )
return - EFAULT ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( oldval ! = uval )
return - EAGAIN ;
return 0 ;
}
2006-07-03 11:25:05 +04:00
/*
* Express the locking dependencies for lockdep :
*/
static inline void
double_lock_hb ( struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb2 )
{
if ( hb1 < = hb2 ) {
spin_lock ( & hb1 - > lock ) ;
if ( hb1 < hb2 )
spin_lock_nested ( & hb2 - > lock , SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING ) ;
} else { /* hb1 > hb2 */
spin_lock ( & hb2 - > lock ) ;
spin_lock_nested ( & hb1 - > lock , SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING ) ;
}
}
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
static inline void
double_unlock_hb ( struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb2 )
{
2009-03-13 01:11:18 +03:00
spin_unlock ( & hb1 - > lock ) ;
2009-03-13 12:32:07 +03:00
if ( hb1 ! = hb2 )
spin_unlock ( & hb2 - > lock ) ;
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
2009-03-12 10:55:37 +03:00
* Wake up waiters matching bitset queued on this futex ( uaddr ) .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int
futex_wake ( u32 __user * uaddr , unsigned int flags , int nr_wake , u32 bitset )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
struct futex_q * this , * next ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_head * head ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
union futex_key key = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
int ret ;
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
if ( ! bitset )
return - EINVAL ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key , VERIFY_READ ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
goto out ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
hb = hash_futex ( & key ) ;
spin_lock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
head = & hb - > chain ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head , list ) {
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( match_futex ( & this - > key , & key ) ) {
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( this - > pi_state | | this - > rt_waiter ) {
2006-07-01 15:35:46 +04:00
ret = - EINVAL ;
break ;
}
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
/* Check if one of the bits is set in both bitsets */
if ( ! ( this - > bitset & bitset ) )
continue ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
wake_futex ( this ) ;
if ( + + ret > = nr_wake )
break ;
}
}
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return ret ;
}
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
/*
* Wake up all waiters hashed on the physical page that is mapped
* to this virtual address :
*/
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
static int
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
futex_wake_op ( u32 __user * uaddr1 , unsigned int flags , u32 __user * uaddr2 ,
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
int nr_wake , int nr_wake2 , int op )
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
{
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
union futex_key key1 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT , key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 , * hb2 ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_head * head ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
struct futex_q * this , * next ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
int ret , op_ret ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
retry :
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr1 , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key1 , VERIFY_READ ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
goto out ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr2 , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key2 , VERIFY_WRITE ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out_put_key1 ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
hb1 = hash_futex ( & key1 ) ;
hb2 = hash_futex ( & key2 ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
retry_private :
2009-10-04 11:34:17 +04:00
double_lock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
op_ret = futex_atomic_op_inuser ( op , uaddr2 ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( op_ret < 0 ) ) {
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
2006-01-06 11:11:44 +03:00
# ifndef CONFIG_MMU
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
/*
* we don ' t get EFAULT from MMU faults if we don ' t have an MMU ,
* but we might get them from range checking
*/
2006-01-06 11:11:44 +03:00
ret = op_ret ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out_put_keys ;
2006-01-06 11:11:44 +03:00
# endif
2005-11-07 11:59:33 +03:00
if ( unlikely ( op_ret ! = - EFAULT ) ) {
ret = op_ret ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out_put_keys ;
2005-11-07 11:59:33 +03:00
}
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
ret = fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr2 ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( ret )
2009-03-12 10:55:46 +03:00
goto out_put_keys ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
if ( ! ( flags & FLAGS_SHARED ) )
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry_private ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
}
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
head = & hb1 - > chain ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head , list ) {
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( match_futex ( & this - > key , & key1 ) ) {
wake_futex ( this ) ;
if ( + + ret > = nr_wake )
break ;
}
}
if ( op_ret > 0 ) {
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
head = & hb2 - > chain ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
op_ret = 0 ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head , list ) {
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
if ( match_futex ( & this - > key , & key2 ) ) {
wake_futex ( this ) ;
if ( + + op_ret > = nr_wake2 )
break ;
}
}
ret + = op_ret ;
}
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_put_keys :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_put_key1 :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:31 +04:00
/**
* requeue_futex ( ) - Requeue a futex_q from one hb to another
* @ q : the futex_q to requeue
* @ hb1 : the source hash_bucket
* @ hb2 : the target hash_bucket
* @ key2 : the new key for the requeued futex_q
*/
static inline
void requeue_futex ( struct futex_q * q , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 ,
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb2 , union futex_key * key2 )
{
/*
* If key1 and key2 hash to the same bucket , no need to
* requeue .
*/
if ( likely ( & hb1 - > chain ! = & hb2 - > chain ) ) {
plist_del ( & q - > list , & hb1 - > chain ) ;
plist_add ( & q - > list , & hb2 - > chain ) ;
q - > lock_ptr = & hb2 - > lock ;
}
get_futex_key_refs ( key2 ) ;
q - > key = * key2 ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/**
* requeue_pi_wake_futex ( ) - Wake a task that acquired the lock during requeue
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* @ q : the futex_q
* @ key : the key of the requeue target futex
* @ hb : the hash_bucket of the requeue target futex
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* During futex_requeue , with requeue_pi = 1 , it is possible to acquire the
* target futex if it is uncontended or via a lock steal . Set the futex_q key
* to the requeue target futex so the waiter can detect the wakeup on the right
* futex , but remove it from the hb and NULL the rt_waiter so it can detect
2009-08-10 02:34:39 +04:00
* atomic lock acquisition . Set the q - > lock_ptr to the requeue target hb - > lock
* to protect access to the pi_state to fixup the owner later . Must be called
* with both q - > lock_ptr and hb - > lock held .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
static inline
2009-08-10 02:34:39 +04:00
void requeue_pi_wake_futex ( struct futex_q * q , union futex_key * key ,
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb )
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
{
get_futex_key_refs ( key ) ;
q - > key = * key ;
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
__unqueue_futex ( q ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! q - > rt_waiter ) ;
q - > rt_waiter = NULL ;
2009-08-10 02:34:39 +04:00
q - > lock_ptr = & hb - > lock ;
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
wake_up_state ( q - > task , TASK_NORMAL ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
}
/**
* futex_proxy_trylock_atomic ( ) - Attempt an atomic lock for the top waiter
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
* @ pifutex : the user address of the to futex
* @ hb1 : the from futex hash bucket , must be locked by the caller
* @ hb2 : the to futex hash bucket , must be locked by the caller
* @ key1 : the from futex key
* @ key2 : the to futex key
* @ ps : address to store the pi_state pointer
* @ set_waiters : force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit ( 1 ) or not ( 0 )
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* Try and get the lock on behalf of the top waiter if we can do it atomically .
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
* Wake the top waiter if we succeed . If the caller specified set_waiters ,
* then direct futex_lock_pi_atomic ( ) to force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS bit .
* hb1 and hb2 must be held by the caller .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* Returns :
* 0 - failed to acquire the lock atomicly
* 1 - acquired the lock
* < 0 - error
*/
static int futex_proxy_trylock_atomic ( u32 __user * pifutex ,
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 ,
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb2 ,
union futex_key * key1 , union futex_key * key2 ,
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
struct futex_pi_state * * ps , int set_waiters )
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
{
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
struct futex_q * top_waiter = NULL ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
u32 curval ;
int ret ;
if ( get_futex_value_locked ( & curval , pifutex ) )
return - EFAULT ;
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
/*
* Find the top_waiter and determine if there are additional waiters .
* If the caller intends to requeue more than 1 waiter to pifutex ,
* force futex_lock_pi_atomic ( ) to set the FUTEX_WAITERS bit now ,
* as we have means to handle the possible fault . If not , don ' t set
* the bit unecessarily as it will force the subsequent unlock to enter
* the kernel .
*/
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
top_waiter = futex_top_waiter ( hb1 , key1 ) ;
/* There are no waiters, nothing for us to do. */
if ( ! top_waiter )
return 0 ;
2009-08-14 04:36:53 +04:00
/* Ensure we requeue to the expected futex. */
if ( ! match_futex ( top_waiter - > requeue_pi_key , key2 ) )
return - EINVAL ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/*
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
* Try to take the lock for top_waiter . Set the FUTEX_WAITERS bit in
* the contended case or if set_waiters is 1. The pi_state is returned
* in ps in contended cases .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
ret = futex_lock_pi_atomic ( pifutex , hb2 , key2 , ps , top_waiter - > task ,
set_waiters ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( ret = = 1 )
2009-08-10 02:34:39 +04:00
requeue_pi_wake_futex ( top_waiter , key2 , hb2 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
return ret ;
}
/**
* futex_requeue ( ) - Requeue waiters from uaddr1 to uaddr2
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* @ uaddr1 : source futex user address
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
* @ flags : futex flags ( FLAGS_SHARED , etc . )
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* @ uaddr2 : target futex user address
* @ nr_wake : number of waiters to wake ( must be 1 for requeue_pi )
* @ nr_requeue : number of waiters to requeue ( 0 - INT_MAX )
* @ cmpval : @ uaddr1 expected value ( or % NULL )
* @ requeue_pi : if we are attempting to requeue from a non - pi futex to a
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
* pi futex ( pi to pi requeue is not supported )
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* Requeue waiters on uaddr1 to uaddr2 . In the requeue_pi case , try to acquire
* uaddr2 atomically on behalf of the top waiter .
*
* Returns :
* > = 0 - on success , the number of tasks requeued or woken
* < 0 - on error
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_requeue ( u32 __user * uaddr1 , unsigned int flags ,
u32 __user * uaddr2 , int nr_wake , int nr_requeue ,
u32 * cmpval , int requeue_pi )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
union futex_key key1 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT , key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
int drop_count = 0 , task_count = 0 , ret ;
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state = NULL ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb1 , * hb2 ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_head * head1 ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
struct futex_q * this , * next ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
u32 curval2 ;
if ( requeue_pi ) {
/*
* requeue_pi requires a pi_state , try to allocate it now
* without any locks in case it fails .
*/
if ( refill_pi_state_cache ( ) )
return - ENOMEM ;
/*
* requeue_pi must wake as many tasks as it can , up to nr_wake
* + nr_requeue , since it acquires the rt_mutex prior to
* returning to userspace , so as to not leave the rt_mutex with
* waiters and no owner . However , second and third wake - ups
* cannot be predicted as they involve race conditions with the
* first wake and a fault while looking up the pi_state . Both
* pthread_cond_signal ( ) and pthread_cond_broadcast ( ) should
* use nr_wake = 1.
*/
if ( nr_wake ! = 1 )
return - EINVAL ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
retry :
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( pi_state ! = NULL ) {
/*
* We will have to lookup the pi_state again , so free this one
* to keep the accounting correct .
*/
free_pi_state ( pi_state ) ;
pi_state = NULL ;
}
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr1 , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key1 , VERIFY_READ ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
goto out ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr2 , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key2 ,
requeue_pi ? VERIFY_WRITE : VERIFY_READ ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out_put_key1 ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
hb1 = hash_futex ( & key1 ) ;
hb2 = hash_futex ( & key2 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
retry_private :
2006-07-03 11:25:05 +04:00
double_lock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
if ( likely ( cmpval ! = NULL ) ) {
u32 curval ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
ret = get_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr1 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ) ) {
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
ret = get_user ( curval , uaddr1 ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
if ( ret )
goto out_put_keys ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
if ( ! ( flags & FLAGS_SHARED ) )
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry_private ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
if ( curval ! = * cmpval ) {
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
ret = - EAGAIN ;
goto out_unlock ;
}
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( requeue_pi & & ( task_count - nr_wake < nr_requeue ) ) {
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
/*
* Attempt to acquire uaddr2 and wake the top waiter . If we
* intend to requeue waiters , force setting the FUTEX_WAITERS
* bit . We force this here where we are able to easily handle
* faults rather in the requeue loop below .
*/
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
ret = futex_proxy_trylock_atomic ( uaddr2 , hb1 , hb2 , & key1 ,
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
& key2 , & pi_state , nr_requeue ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/*
* At this point the top_waiter has either taken uaddr2 or is
* waiting on it . If the former , then the pi_state will not
* exist yet , look it up one more time to ensure we have a
* reference to it .
*/
if ( ret = = 1 ) {
WARN_ON ( pi_state ) ;
2009-10-16 02:30:48 +04:00
drop_count + + ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
task_count + + ;
ret = get_futex_value_locked ( & curval2 , uaddr2 ) ;
if ( ! ret )
ret = lookup_pi_state ( curval2 , hb2 , & key2 ,
& pi_state ) ;
}
switch ( ret ) {
case 0 :
break ;
case - EFAULT :
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
ret = fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr2 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( ! ret )
goto retry ;
goto out ;
case - EAGAIN :
/* The owner was exiting, try again. */
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
cond_resched ( ) ;
goto retry ;
default :
goto out_unlock ;
}
}
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
head1 = & hb1 - > chain ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head1 , list ) {
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( task_count - nr_wake > = nr_requeue )
break ;
if ( ! match_futex ( & this - > key , & key1 ) )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
continue ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
2009-08-08 02:20:48 +04:00
/*
* FUTEX_WAIT_REQEUE_PI and FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI should always
* be paired with each other and no other futex ops .
*/
if ( ( requeue_pi & & ! this - > rt_waiter ) | |
( ! requeue_pi & & this - > rt_waiter ) ) {
ret = - EINVAL ;
break ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/*
* Wake nr_wake waiters . For requeue_pi , if we acquired the
* lock , we already woke the top_waiter . If not , it will be
* woken by futex_unlock_pi ( ) .
*/
if ( + + task_count < = nr_wake & & ! requeue_pi ) {
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
wake_futex ( this ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
continue ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-08-14 04:36:53 +04:00
/* Ensure we requeue to the expected futex for requeue_pi. */
if ( requeue_pi & & ! match_futex ( this - > requeue_pi_key , & key2 ) ) {
ret = - EINVAL ;
break ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/*
* Requeue nr_requeue waiters and possibly one more in the case
* of requeue_pi if we couldn ' t acquire the lock atomically .
*/
if ( requeue_pi ) {
/* Prepare the waiter to take the rt_mutex. */
atomic_inc ( & pi_state - > refcount ) ;
this - > pi_state = pi_state ;
ret = rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock ( & pi_state - > pi_mutex ,
this - > rt_waiter ,
this - > task , 1 ) ;
if ( ret = = 1 ) {
/* We got the lock. */
2009-08-10 02:34:39 +04:00
requeue_pi_wake_futex ( this , & key2 , hb2 ) ;
2009-10-16 02:30:48 +04:00
drop_count + + ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
continue ;
} else if ( ret ) {
/* -EDEADLK */
this - > pi_state = NULL ;
free_pi_state ( pi_state ) ;
goto out_unlock ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
requeue_futex ( this , hb1 , hb2 , & key2 ) ;
drop_count + + ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
out_unlock :
2009-03-12 10:55:52 +03:00
double_unlock_hb ( hb1 , hb2 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-04-03 01:19:38 +04:00
/*
* drop_futex_key_refs ( ) must be called outside the spinlocks . During
* the requeue we moved futex_q ' s from the hash bucket at key1 to the
* one at key2 and updated their key pointer . We no longer need to
* hold the references to key1 .
*/
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
while ( - - drop_count > = 0 )
2007-05-08 11:26:42 +04:00
drop_futex_key_refs ( & key1 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_put_keys :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_put_key1 :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key1 ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( pi_state ! = NULL )
free_pi_state ( pi_state ) ;
return ret ? ret : task_count ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
/* The key must be already stored in q->key. */
2008-01-25 12:40:46 +03:00
static inline struct futex_hash_bucket * queue_lock ( struct futex_q * q )
2010-09-14 16:43:48 +04:00
__acquires ( & hb - > lock )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
hb = hash_futex ( & q - > key ) ;
q - > lock_ptr = & hb - > lock ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
spin_lock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
return hb ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2009-09-22 09:30:15 +04:00
static inline void
queue_unlock ( struct futex_q * q , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb )
2010-09-14 16:43:48 +04:00
__releases ( & hb - > lock )
2009-09-22 09:30:15 +04:00
{
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
}
/**
* queue_me ( ) - Enqueue the futex_q on the futex_hash_bucket
* @ q : The futex_q to enqueue
* @ hb : The destination hash bucket
*
* The hb - > lock must be held by the caller , and is released here . A call to
* queue_me ( ) is typically paired with exactly one call to unqueue_me ( ) . The
* exceptions involve the PI related operations , which may use unqueue_me_pi ( )
* or nothing if the unqueue is done as part of the wake process and the unqueue
* state is implicit in the state of woken task ( see futex_wait_requeue_pi ( ) for
* an example ) .
*/
2008-01-25 12:40:46 +03:00
static inline void queue_me ( struct futex_q * q , struct futex_hash_bucket * hb )
2010-09-14 16:43:48 +04:00
__releases ( & hb - > lock )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
int prio ;
/*
* The priority used to register this element is
* - either the real thread - priority for the real - time threads
* ( i . e . threads with a priority lower than MAX_RT_PRIO )
* - or MAX_RT_PRIO for non - RT threads .
* Thus , all RT - threads are woken first in priority order , and
* the others are woken last , in FIFO order .
*/
prio = min ( current - > normal_prio , MAX_RT_PRIO ) ;
plist_node_init ( & q - > list , prio ) ;
plist_add ( & q - > list , & hb - > chain ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
q - > task = current ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2009-09-22 09:30:15 +04:00
/**
* unqueue_me ( ) - Remove the futex_q from its futex_hash_bucket
* @ q : The futex_q to unqueue
*
* The q - > lock_ptr must not be held by the caller . A call to unqueue_me ( ) must
* be paired with exactly one earlier call to queue_me ( ) .
*
* Returns :
* 1 - if the futex_q was still queued ( and we removed unqueued it )
* 0 - if the futex_q was already removed by the waking thread
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
static int unqueue_me ( struct futex_q * q )
{
spinlock_t * lock_ptr ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
int ret = 0 ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/* In the common case we don't take the spinlock, which is nice. */
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
retry :
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
lock_ptr = q - > lock_ptr ;
[PATCH] bug in futex unqueue_me
This patch adds a barrier() in futex unqueue_me to avoid aliasing of two
pointers.
On my s390x system I saw the following oops:
Unable to handle kernel pointer dereference at virtual kernel address
0000000000000000
Oops: 0004 [#1]
CPU: 0 Not tainted
Process mytool (pid: 13613, task: 000000003ecb6ac0, ksp: 00000000366bdbd8)
Krnl PSW : 0704d00180000000 00000000003c9ac2 (_spin_lock+0xe/0x30)
Krnl GPRS: 00000000ffffffff 000000003ecb6ac0 0000000000000000 0700000000000000
0000000000000000 0000000000000000 000001fe00002028 00000000000c091f
000001fe00002054 000001fe00002054 0000000000000000 00000000366bddc0
00000000005ef8c0 00000000003d00e8 0000000000144f91 00000000366bdcb8
Krnl Code: ba 4e 20 00 12 44 b9 16 00 3e a7 84 00 08 e3 e0 f0 88 00 04
Call Trace:
([<0000000000144f90>] unqueue_me+0x40/0xe4)
[<0000000000145a0c>] do_futex+0x33c/0xc40
[<000000000014643e>] sys_futex+0x12e/0x144
[<000000000010bb00>] sysc_noemu+0x10/0x16
[<000002000003741c>] 0x2000003741c
The code in question is:
static int unqueue_me(struct futex_q *q)
{
int ret = 0;
spinlock_t *lock_ptr;
/* In the common case we don't take the spinlock, which is nice. */
retry:
lock_ptr = q->lock_ptr;
if (lock_ptr != 0) {
spin_lock(lock_ptr);
/*
* q->lock_ptr can change between reading it and
* spin_lock(), causing us to take the wrong lock. This
* corrects the race condition.
[...]
and my compiler (gcc 4.1.0) makes the following out of it:
00000000000003c8 <unqueue_me>:
3c8: eb bf f0 70 00 24 stmg %r11,%r15,112(%r15)
3ce: c0 d0 00 00 00 00 larl %r13,3ce <unqueue_me+0x6>
3d0: R_390_PC32DBL .rodata+0x2a
3d4: a7 f1 1e 00 tml %r15,7680
3d8: a7 84 00 01 je 3da <unqueue_me+0x12>
3dc: b9 04 00 ef lgr %r14,%r15
3e0: a7 fb ff d0 aghi %r15,-48
3e4: b9 04 00 b2 lgr %r11,%r2
3e8: e3 e0 f0 98 00 24 stg %r14,152(%r15)
3ee: e3 c0 b0 28 00 04 lg %r12,40(%r11)
/* write q->lock_ptr in r12 */
3f4: b9 02 00 cc ltgr %r12,%r12
3f8: a7 84 00 4b je 48e <unqueue_me+0xc6>
/* if r12 is zero then jump over the code.... */
3fc: e3 20 b0 28 00 04 lg %r2,40(%r11)
/* write q->lock_ptr in r2 */
402: c0 e5 00 00 00 00 brasl %r14,402 <unqueue_me+0x3a>
404: R_390_PC32DBL _spin_lock+0x2
/* use r2 as parameter for spin_lock */
So the code becomes more or less:
if (q->lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(q->lock_ptr)
instead of
if (lock_ptr != 0) spin_lock(lock_ptr)
Which caused the oops from above.
After adding a barrier gcc creates code without this problem:
[...] (the same)
3ee: e3 c0 b0 28 00 04 lg %r12,40(%r11)
3f4: b9 02 00 cc ltgr %r12,%r12
3f8: b9 04 00 2c lgr %r2,%r12
3fc: a7 84 00 48 je 48c <unqueue_me+0xc4>
400: c0 e5 00 00 00 00 brasl %r14,400 <unqueue_me+0x38>
402: R_390_PC32DBL _spin_lock+0x2
As a general note, this code of unqueue_me seems a bit fishy. The retry logic
of unqueue_me only works if we can guarantee, that the original value of
q->lock_ptr is always a spinlock (Otherwise we overwrite kernel memory). We
know that q->lock_ptr can change. I dont know what happens with the original
spinlock, as I am not an expert with the futex code.
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@timesys.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-08-05 23:13:52 +04:00
barrier ( ) ;
2007-10-18 14:07:05 +04:00
if ( lock_ptr ! = NULL ) {
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
spin_lock ( lock_ptr ) ;
/*
* q - > lock_ptr can change between reading it and
* spin_lock ( ) , causing us to take the wrong lock . This
* corrects the race condition .
*
* Reasoning goes like this : if we have the wrong lock ,
* q - > lock_ptr must have changed ( maybe several times )
* between reading it and the spin_lock ( ) . It can
* change again after the spin_lock ( ) but only if it was
* already changed before the spin_lock ( ) . It cannot ,
* however , change back to the original value . Therefore
* we can detect whether we acquired the correct lock .
*/
if ( unlikely ( lock_ptr ! = q - > lock_ptr ) ) {
spin_unlock ( lock_ptr ) ;
goto retry ;
}
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
__unqueue_futex ( q ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
BUG_ON ( q - > pi_state ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
spin_unlock ( lock_ptr ) ;
ret = 1 ;
}
2007-05-08 11:26:42 +04:00
drop_futex_key_refs ( & q - > key ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* PI futexes can not be requeued and must remove themself from the
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
* hash bucket . The hash bucket lock ( i . e . lock_ptr ) is held on entry
* and dropped here .
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
*/
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
static void unqueue_me_pi ( struct futex_q * q )
2010-09-14 16:43:48 +04:00
__releases ( q - > lock_ptr )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
{
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
__unqueue_futex ( q ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
BUG_ON ( ! q - > pi_state ) ;
free_pi_state ( q - > pi_state ) ;
q - > pi_state = NULL ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
spin_unlock ( q - > lock_ptr ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
}
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
/*
futex: Prevent stale futex owner when interrupted/timeout
Roland Westrelin did a great analysis of a long standing thinko in the
return path of futex_lock_pi.
While we fixed the lock steal case long ago, which was easy to trigger,
we never had a test case which exposed this problem and stupidly never
thought about the reverse lock stealing scenario and the return to user
space with a stale state.
When a blocked tasks returns from rt_mutex_timed_locked without holding
the rt_mutex (due to a signal or timeout) and at the same time the task
holding the futex is releasing the futex and assigning the ownership of
the futex to the returning task, then it might happen that a third task
acquires the rt_mutex before the final rt_mutex_trylock() of the
returning task happens under the futex hash bucket lock. The returning
task returns to user space with ETIMEOUT or EINTR, but the user space
futex value is assigned to this task. The task which acquired the
rt_mutex fixes the user space futex value right after the hash bucket
lock has been released by the returning task, but for a short period of
time the user space value is wrong.
Detailed description is available at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400541
The fix for this is the same as we do when the rt_mutex was acquired by
a higher priority task via lock stealing from the designated new owner.
In that case we already fix the user space value and the internal
pi_state up before we return. This mechanism can be used to fixup the
above corner case as well. When the returning task, which failed to
acquire the rt_mutex, notices that it is the designated owner of the
futex, then it fixes up the stale user space value and the pi_state,
before returning to user space. This happens with the futex hash bucket
lock held, so the task which acquired the rt_mutex is guaranteed to be
blocked on the hash bucket lock. We can access the rt_mutex owner, which
gives us the pid of the new owner, safely here as the owner is not able
to modify (release) it while waiting on the hash bucket lock.
Rename the "curr" argument of fixup_pi_state_owner() to "newowner" to
avoid confusion with current and add the check for the stale state into
the failure path of rt_mutex_trylock() in the return path of
unlock_futex_pi(). If the situation is detected use
fixup_pi_state_owner() to assign everything to the owner of the
rt_mutex.
Pointed-out-and-tested-by: Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin@sun.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-01-08 21:47:38 +03:00
* Fixup the pi_state owner with the new owner .
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
*
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
* Must be called with hash bucket lock held and mm - > sem held for non
* private futexes .
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
*/
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
static int fixup_pi_state_owner ( u32 __user * uaddr , struct futex_q * q ,
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
struct task_struct * newowner )
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
{
futex: Prevent stale futex owner when interrupted/timeout
Roland Westrelin did a great analysis of a long standing thinko in the
return path of futex_lock_pi.
While we fixed the lock steal case long ago, which was easy to trigger,
we never had a test case which exposed this problem and stupidly never
thought about the reverse lock stealing scenario and the return to user
space with a stale state.
When a blocked tasks returns from rt_mutex_timed_locked without holding
the rt_mutex (due to a signal or timeout) and at the same time the task
holding the futex is releasing the futex and assigning the ownership of
the futex to the returning task, then it might happen that a third task
acquires the rt_mutex before the final rt_mutex_trylock() of the
returning task happens under the futex hash bucket lock. The returning
task returns to user space with ETIMEOUT or EINTR, but the user space
futex value is assigned to this task. The task which acquired the
rt_mutex fixes the user space futex value right after the hash bucket
lock has been released by the returning task, but for a short period of
time the user space value is wrong.
Detailed description is available at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400541
The fix for this is the same as we do when the rt_mutex was acquired by
a higher priority task via lock stealing from the designated new owner.
In that case we already fix the user space value and the internal
pi_state up before we return. This mechanism can be used to fixup the
above corner case as well. When the returning task, which failed to
acquire the rt_mutex, notices that it is the designated owner of the
futex, then it fixes up the stale user space value and the pi_state,
before returning to user space. This happens with the futex hash bucket
lock held, so the task which acquired the rt_mutex is guaranteed to be
blocked on the hash bucket lock. We can access the rt_mutex owner, which
gives us the pid of the new owner, safely here as the owner is not able
to modify (release) it while waiting on the hash bucket lock.
Rename the "curr" argument of fixup_pi_state_owner() to "newowner" to
avoid confusion with current and add the check for the stale state into
the failure path of rt_mutex_trylock() in the return path of
unlock_futex_pi(). If the situation is detected use
fixup_pi_state_owner() to assign everything to the owner of the
rt_mutex.
Pointed-out-and-tested-by: Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin@sun.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-01-08 21:47:38 +03:00
u32 newtid = task_pid_vnr ( newowner ) | FUTEX_WAITERS ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
struct futex_pi_state * pi_state = q - > pi_state ;
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
struct task_struct * oldowner = pi_state - > owner ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
u32 uval , curval , newval ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
int ret ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
/* Owner died? */
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
if ( ! pi_state - > owner )
newtid | = FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ;
/*
* We are here either because we stole the rtmutex from the
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
* previous highest priority waiter or we are the highest priority
* waiter but failed to get the rtmutex the first time .
* We have to replace the newowner TID in the user space variable .
* This must be atomic as we have to preserve the owner died bit here .
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
*
2009-03-12 10:55:37 +03:00
* Note : We write the user space value _before_ changing the pi_state
* because we can fault here . Imagine swapped out pages or a fork
* that marked all the anonymous memory readonly for cow .
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
*
* Modifying pi_state _before_ the user space value would
* leave the pi_state in an inconsistent state when we fault
* here , because we need to drop the hash bucket lock to
* handle the fault . This might be observed in the PID check
* in lookup_pi_state .
*/
retry :
if ( get_futex_value_locked ( & uval , uaddr ) )
goto handle_fault ;
while ( 1 ) {
newval = ( uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ) | newtid ;
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & curval , uaddr , uval , newval ) )
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
goto handle_fault ;
if ( curval = = uval )
break ;
uval = curval ;
}
/*
* We fixed up user space . Now we need to fix the pi_state
* itself .
*/
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( pi_state - > owner ! = NULL ) {
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
WARN_ON ( list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
list_del_init ( & pi_state - > list ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & pi_state - > owner - > pi_lock ) ;
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
}
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
futex: Prevent stale futex owner when interrupted/timeout
Roland Westrelin did a great analysis of a long standing thinko in the
return path of futex_lock_pi.
While we fixed the lock steal case long ago, which was easy to trigger,
we never had a test case which exposed this problem and stupidly never
thought about the reverse lock stealing scenario and the return to user
space with a stale state.
When a blocked tasks returns from rt_mutex_timed_locked without holding
the rt_mutex (due to a signal or timeout) and at the same time the task
holding the futex is releasing the futex and assigning the ownership of
the futex to the returning task, then it might happen that a third task
acquires the rt_mutex before the final rt_mutex_trylock() of the
returning task happens under the futex hash bucket lock. The returning
task returns to user space with ETIMEOUT or EINTR, but the user space
futex value is assigned to this task. The task which acquired the
rt_mutex fixes the user space futex value right after the hash bucket
lock has been released by the returning task, but for a short period of
time the user space value is wrong.
Detailed description is available at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400541
The fix for this is the same as we do when the rt_mutex was acquired by
a higher priority task via lock stealing from the designated new owner.
In that case we already fix the user space value and the internal
pi_state up before we return. This mechanism can be used to fixup the
above corner case as well. When the returning task, which failed to
acquire the rt_mutex, notices that it is the designated owner of the
futex, then it fixes up the stale user space value and the pi_state,
before returning to user space. This happens with the futex hash bucket
lock held, so the task which acquired the rt_mutex is guaranteed to be
blocked on the hash bucket lock. We can access the rt_mutex owner, which
gives us the pid of the new owner, safely here as the owner is not able
to modify (release) it while waiting on the hash bucket lock.
Rename the "curr" argument of fixup_pi_state_owner() to "newowner" to
avoid confusion with current and add the check for the stale state into
the failure path of rt_mutex_trylock() in the return path of
unlock_futex_pi(). If the situation is detected use
fixup_pi_state_owner() to assign everything to the owner of the
rt_mutex.
Pointed-out-and-tested-by: Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin@sun.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-01-08 21:47:38 +03:00
pi_state - > owner = newowner ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_lock_irq ( & newowner - > pi_lock ) ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! list_empty ( & pi_state - > list ) ) ;
futex: Prevent stale futex owner when interrupted/timeout
Roland Westrelin did a great analysis of a long standing thinko in the
return path of futex_lock_pi.
While we fixed the lock steal case long ago, which was easy to trigger,
we never had a test case which exposed this problem and stupidly never
thought about the reverse lock stealing scenario and the return to user
space with a stale state.
When a blocked tasks returns from rt_mutex_timed_locked without holding
the rt_mutex (due to a signal or timeout) and at the same time the task
holding the futex is releasing the futex and assigning the ownership of
the futex to the returning task, then it might happen that a third task
acquires the rt_mutex before the final rt_mutex_trylock() of the
returning task happens under the futex hash bucket lock. The returning
task returns to user space with ETIMEOUT or EINTR, but the user space
futex value is assigned to this task. The task which acquired the
rt_mutex fixes the user space futex value right after the hash bucket
lock has been released by the returning task, but for a short period of
time the user space value is wrong.
Detailed description is available at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=400541
The fix for this is the same as we do when the rt_mutex was acquired by
a higher priority task via lock stealing from the designated new owner.
In that case we already fix the user space value and the internal
pi_state up before we return. This mechanism can be used to fixup the
above corner case as well. When the returning task, which failed to
acquire the rt_mutex, notices that it is the designated owner of the
futex, then it fixes up the stale user space value and the pi_state,
before returning to user space. This happens with the futex hash bucket
lock held, so the task which acquired the rt_mutex is guaranteed to be
blocked on the hash bucket lock. We can access the rt_mutex owner, which
gives us the pid of the new owner, safely here as the owner is not able
to modify (release) it while waiting on the hash bucket lock.
Rename the "curr" argument of fixup_pi_state_owner() to "newowner" to
avoid confusion with current and add the check for the stale state into
the failure path of rt_mutex_trylock() in the return path of
unlock_futex_pi(). If the situation is detected use
fixup_pi_state_owner() to assign everything to the owner of the
rt_mutex.
Pointed-out-and-tested-by: Roland Westrelin <roland.westrelin@sun.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-01-08 21:47:38 +03:00
list_add ( & pi_state - > list , & newowner - > pi_state_list ) ;
2009-11-17 16:54:03 +03:00
raw_spin_unlock_irq ( & newowner - > pi_lock ) ;
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
return 0 ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
/*
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
* To handle the page fault we need to drop the hash bucket
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
* lock here . That gives the other task ( either the highest priority
* waiter itself or the task which stole the rtmutex ) the
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
* chance to try the fixup of the pi_state . So once we are
* back from handling the fault we need to check the pi_state
* after reacquiring the hash bucket lock and before trying to
* do another fixup . When the fixup has been done already we
* simply return .
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
*/
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
handle_fault :
spin_unlock ( q - > lock_ptr ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
ret = fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
spin_lock ( q - > lock_ptr ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
2008-06-23 13:21:58 +04:00
/*
* Check if someone else fixed it for us :
*/
if ( pi_state - > owner ! = oldowner )
return 0 ;
if ( ret )
return ret ;
goto retry ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
}
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
static long futex_wait_restart ( struct restart_block * restart ) ;
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
/**
* fixup_owner ( ) - Post lock pi_state and corner case management
* @ uaddr : user address of the futex
* @ q : futex_q ( contains pi_state and access to the rt_mutex )
* @ locked : if the attempt to take the rt_mutex succeeded ( 1 ) or not ( 0 )
*
* After attempting to lock an rt_mutex , this function is called to cleanup
* the pi_state owner as well as handle race conditions that may allow us to
* acquire the lock . Must be called with the hb lock held .
*
* Returns :
* 1 - success , lock taken
* 0 - success , lock not taken
* < 0 - on error ( - EFAULT )
*/
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
static int fixup_owner ( u32 __user * uaddr , struct futex_q * q , int locked )
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
{
struct task_struct * owner ;
int ret = 0 ;
if ( locked ) {
/*
* Got the lock . We might not be the anticipated owner if we
* did a lock - steal - fix up the PI - state in that case :
*/
if ( q - > pi_state - > owner ! = current )
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
ret = fixup_pi_state_owner ( uaddr , q , current ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
goto out ;
}
/*
* Catch the rare case , where the lock was released when we were on the
* way back before we locked the hash bucket .
*/
if ( q - > pi_state - > owner = = current ) {
/*
* Try to get the rt_mutex now . This might fail as some other
* task acquired the rt_mutex after we removed ourself from the
* rt_mutex waiters list .
*/
if ( rt_mutex_trylock ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ) {
locked = 1 ;
goto out ;
}
/*
* pi_state is incorrect , some other task did a lock steal and
* we returned due to timeout or signal without taking the
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
* rt_mutex . Too late .
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
*/
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
raw_spin_lock ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex . wait_lock ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
owner = rt_mutex_owner ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
if ( ! owner )
owner = rt_mutex_next_owner ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
raw_spin_unlock ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex . wait_lock ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
ret = fixup_pi_state_owner ( uaddr , q , owner ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
goto out ;
}
/*
* Paranoia check . If we did not take the lock , then we should not be
rtmutex: Simplify PI algorithm and make highest prio task get lock
In current rtmutex, the pending owner may be boosted by the tasks
in the rtmutex's waitlist when the pending owner is deboosted
or a task in the waitlist is boosted. This boosting is unrelated,
because the pending owner does not really take the rtmutex.
It is not reasonable.
Example.
time1:
A(high prio) onwers the rtmutex.
B(mid prio) and C (low prio) in the waitlist.
time2
A release the lock, B becomes the pending owner
A(or other high prio task) continues to run. B's prio is lower
than A, so B is just queued at the runqueue.
time3
A or other high prio task sleeps, but we have passed some time
The B and C's prio are changed in the period (time2 ~ time3)
due to boosting or deboosting. Now C has the priority higher
than B. ***Is it reasonable that C has to boost B and help B to
get the rtmutex?
NO!! I think, it is unrelated/unneed boosting before B really
owns the rtmutex. We should give C a chance to beat B and
win the rtmutex.
This is the motivation of this patch. This patch *ensures*
only the top waiter or higher priority task can take the lock.
How?
1) we don't dequeue the top waiter when unlock, if the top waiter
is changed, the old top waiter will fail and go to sleep again.
2) when requiring lock, it will get the lock when the lock is not taken and:
there is no waiter OR higher priority than waiters OR it is top waiter.
3) In any time, the top waiter is changed, the top waiter will be woken up.
The algorithm is much simpler than before, no pending owner, no
boosting for pending owner.
Other advantage of this patch:
1) The states of a rtmutex are reduced a half, easier to read the code.
2) the codes become shorter.
3) top waiter is not dequeued until it really take the lock:
they will retain FIFO when it is stolen.
Not advantage nor disadvantage
1) Even we may wakeup multiple waiters(any time when top waiter changed),
we hardly cause "thundering herd",
the number of wokenup task is likely 1 or very little.
2) two APIs are changed.
rt_mutex_owner() will not return pending owner, it will return NULL when
the top waiter is going to take the lock.
rt_mutex_next_owner() always return the top waiter.
will not return NULL if we have waiters
because the top waiter is not dequeued.
I have fixed the code that use these APIs.
need updated after this patch is accepted
1) Document/*
2) the testcase scripts/rt-tester/t4-l2-pi-deboost.tst
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
LKML-Reference: <4D3012D5.4060709@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
2011-01-14 12:09:41 +03:00
* the owner of the rt_mutex .
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
*/
if ( rt_mutex_owner ( & q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex ) = = current )
printk ( KERN_ERR " fixup_owner: ret = %d pi-mutex: %p "
" pi-state %p \n " , ret ,
q - > pi_state - > pi_mutex . owner ,
q - > pi_state - > owner ) ;
out :
return ret ? ret : locked ;
}
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
/**
* futex_wait_queue_me ( ) - queue_me ( ) and wait for wakeup , timeout , or signal
* @ hb : the futex hash bucket , must be locked by the caller
* @ q : the futex_q to queue up on
* @ timeout : the prepared hrtimer_sleeper , or null for no timeout
*/
static void futex_wait_queue_me ( struct futex_hash_bucket * hb , struct futex_q * q ,
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
struct hrtimer_sleeper * timeout )
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
{
2009-09-24 22:54:47 +04:00
/*
* The task state is guaranteed to be set before another task can
* wake it . set_current_state ( ) is implemented using set_mb ( ) and
* queue_me ( ) calls spin_unlock ( ) upon completion , both serializing
* access to the hash list and forcing another memory barrier .
*/
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
set_current_state ( TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE ) ;
2009-09-22 09:30:38 +04:00
queue_me ( q , hb ) ;
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
/* Arm the timer */
if ( timeout ) {
hrtimer_start_expires ( & timeout - > timer , HRTIMER_MODE_ABS ) ;
if ( ! hrtimer_active ( & timeout - > timer ) )
timeout - > task = NULL ;
}
/*
2009-09-22 09:30:38 +04:00
* If we have been removed from the hash list , then another task
* has tried to wake us , and we can skip the call to schedule ( ) .
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
*/
if ( likely ( ! plist_node_empty ( & q - > list ) ) ) {
/*
* If the timer has already expired , current will already be
* flagged for rescheduling . Only call schedule if there
* is no timeout , or if it has yet to expire .
*/
if ( ! timeout | | timeout - > task )
schedule ( ) ;
}
__set_current_state ( TASK_RUNNING ) ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
/**
* futex_wait_setup ( ) - Prepare to wait on a futex
* @ uaddr : the futex userspace address
* @ val : the expected value
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
* @ flags : futex flags ( FLAGS_SHARED , etc . )
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
* @ q : the associated futex_q
* @ hb : storage for hash_bucket pointer to be returned to caller
*
* Setup the futex_q and locate the hash_bucket . Get the futex value and
* compare it with the expected value . Handle atomic faults internally .
* Return with the hb lock held and a q . key reference on success , and unlocked
* with no q . key reference on failure .
*
* Returns :
* 0 - uaddr contains val and hb has been locked
* < 1 - - EFAULT or - EWOULDBLOCK ( uaddr does not contain val ) and hb is unlcoked
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_wait_setup ( u32 __user * uaddr , u32 val , unsigned int flags ,
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
struct futex_q * q , struct futex_hash_bucket * * hb )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
u32 uval ;
int ret ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/*
2009-03-12 10:55:37 +03:00
* Access the page AFTER the hash - bucket is locked .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* Order is important :
*
* Userspace waiter : val = var ; if ( cond ( val ) ) futex_wait ( & var , val ) ;
* Userspace waker : if ( cond ( var ) ) { var = new ; futex_wake ( & var ) ; }
*
* The basic logical guarantee of a futex is that it blocks ONLY
* if cond ( var ) is known to be true at the time of blocking , for
2011-03-07 05:07:50 +03:00
* any cond . If we locked the hash - bucket after testing * uaddr , that
* would open a race condition where we could block indefinitely with
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
* cond ( var ) false , which would violate the guarantee .
*
2011-03-07 05:07:50 +03:00
* On the other hand , we insert q and release the hash - bucket only
* after testing * uaddr . This guarantees that futex_wait ( ) will NOT
* absorb a wakeup if * uaddr does not match the desired values
* while the syscall executes .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
retry :
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & q - > key , VERIFY_READ ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
2009-04-10 20:50:05 +04:00
return ret ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
retry_private :
* hb = queue_lock ( q ) ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
ret = get_futex_value_locked ( & uval , uaddr ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
if ( ret ) {
queue_unlock ( q , * hb ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
ret = get_user ( uval , uaddr ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
if ( ret )
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
goto out ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
if ( ! ( flags & FLAGS_SHARED ) )
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry_private ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q - > key ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
if ( uval ! = val ) {
queue_unlock ( q , * hb ) ;
ret = - EWOULDBLOCK ;
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
out :
if ( ret )
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q - > key ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_wait ( u32 __user * uaddr , unsigned int flags , u32 val ,
ktime_t * abs_time , u32 bitset )
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
{
struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout , * to = NULL ;
struct restart_block * restart ;
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2010-11-09 00:40:28 +03:00
struct futex_q q = futex_q_init ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
int ret ;
if ( ! bitset )
return - EINVAL ;
q . bitset = bitset ;
if ( abs_time ) {
to = & timeout ;
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
hrtimer_init_on_stack ( & to - > timer , ( flags & FLAGS_CLOCKRT ) ?
CLOCK_REALTIME : CLOCK_MONOTONIC ,
HRTIMER_MODE_ABS ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
hrtimer_init_sleeper ( to , current ) ;
hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns ( & to - > timer , * abs_time ,
current - > timer_slack_ns ) ;
}
2009-10-13 22:40:43 +04:00
retry :
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
/*
* Prepare to wait on uaddr . On success , holds hb lock and increments
* q . key refs .
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wait_setup ( uaddr , val , flags , & q , & hb ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:40 +04:00
if ( ret )
goto out ;
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
/* queue_me and wait for wakeup, timeout, or a signal. */
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
futex_wait_queue_me ( hb , & q , to ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
/* If we were woken (and unqueued), we succeeded, whatever. */
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
ret = 0 ;
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
/* unqueue_me() drops q.key ref */
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
if ( ! unqueue_me ( & q ) )
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
goto out ;
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
ret = - ETIMEDOUT ;
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
if ( to & & ! to - > task )
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
goto out ;
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
/*
2009-10-13 22:40:43 +04:00
* We expect signal_pending ( current ) , but we might be the
* victim of a spurious wakeup as well .
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
*/
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
if ( ! signal_pending ( current ) )
2009-10-13 22:40:43 +04:00
goto retry ;
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
ret = - ERESTARTSYS ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( ! abs_time )
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
goto out ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
restart = & current_thread_info ( ) - > restart_block ;
restart - > fn = futex_wait_restart ;
2010-09-14 16:43:47 +04:00
restart - > futex . uaddr = uaddr ;
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
restart - > futex . val = val ;
restart - > futex . time = abs_time - > tv64 ;
restart - > futex . bitset = bitset ;
2011-04-15 02:41:57 +04:00
restart - > futex . flags = flags | FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
2009-02-11 20:10:10 +03:00
ret = - ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
2009-04-04 00:39:33 +04:00
if ( to ) {
hrtimer_cancel ( & to - > timer ) ;
destroy_hrtimer_on_stack ( & to - > timer ) ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
static long futex_wait_restart ( struct restart_block * restart )
{
2010-09-14 16:43:47 +04:00
u32 __user * uaddr = restart - > futex . uaddr ;
2009-04-04 00:40:22 +04:00
ktime_t t , * tp = NULL ;
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
2009-04-04 00:40:22 +04:00
if ( restart - > futex . flags & FLAGS_HAS_TIMEOUT ) {
t . tv64 = restart - > futex . time ;
tp = & t ;
}
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
restart - > fn = do_no_restart_syscall ;
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
return ( long ) futex_wait ( uaddr , restart - > futex . flags ,
restart - > futex . val , tp , restart - > futex . bitset ) ;
2007-05-08 11:26:43 +04:00
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
/*
* Userspace tried a 0 - > TID atomic transition of the futex value
* and failed . The kernel side here does the whole locking operation :
* if there are waiters then it will block , it does PI , etc . ( Due to
* races the kernel might see a 0 value of the futex too . )
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_lock_pi ( u32 __user * uaddr , unsigned int flags , int detect ,
ktime_t * time , int trylock )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
{
2006-09-08 20:47:15 +04:00
struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout , * to = NULL ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2010-11-09 00:40:28 +03:00
struct futex_q q = futex_q_init ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
int res , ret ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( refill_pi_state_cache ( ) )
return - ENOMEM ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( time ) {
2006-09-08 20:47:15 +04:00
to = & timeout ;
2008-04-30 11:55:04 +04:00
hrtimer_init_on_stack ( & to - > timer , CLOCK_REALTIME ,
HRTIMER_MODE_ABS ) ;
2006-09-08 20:47:15 +04:00
hrtimer_init_sleeper ( to , current ) ;
2008-09-02 02:02:30 +04:00
hrtimer_set_expires ( & to - > timer , * time ) ;
2006-09-08 20:47:15 +04:00
}
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
retry :
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & q . key , VERIFY_WRITE ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
retry_private :
2008-01-25 12:40:46 +03:00
hb = queue_lock ( & q ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2009-04-08 10:23:50 +04:00
ret = futex_lock_pi_atomic ( uaddr , hb , & q . key , & q . pi_state , current , 0 ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ) ) {
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
switch ( ret ) {
2009-04-04 00:39:52 +04:00
case 1 :
/* We got the lock. */
ret = 0 ;
goto out_unlock_put_key ;
case - EFAULT :
goto uaddr_faulted ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
case - EAGAIN :
/*
* Task is exiting and we just wait for the
* exit to complete .
*/
queue_unlock ( & q , hb ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q . key ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
cond_resched ( ) ;
goto retry ;
default :
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
goto out_unlock_put_key ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
}
}
/*
* Only actually queue now that the atomic ops are done :
*/
2008-01-25 12:40:46 +03:00
queue_me ( & q , hb ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
WARN_ON ( ! q . pi_state ) ;
/*
* Block on the PI mutex :
*/
if ( ! trylock )
ret = rt_mutex_timed_lock ( & q . pi_state - > pi_mutex , to , 1 ) ;
else {
ret = rt_mutex_trylock ( & q . pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
/* Fixup the trylock return value: */
ret = ret ? 0 : - EWOULDBLOCK ;
}
2006-07-01 15:35:42 +04:00
spin_lock ( q . lock_ptr ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
/*
* Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
* haven ' t already .
*/
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
res = fixup_owner ( uaddr , & q , ! ret ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
/*
* If fixup_owner ( ) returned an error , proprogate that . If it acquired
* the lock , clear our - ETIMEDOUT or - EINTR .
*/
if ( res )
ret = ( res < 0 ) ? res : 0 ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2009-03-12 10:56:06 +03:00
/*
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
* If fixup_owner ( ) faulted and was unable to handle the fault , unlock
* it and return the fault to userspace .
2009-03-12 10:56:06 +03:00
*/
if ( ret & & ( rt_mutex_owner ( & q . pi_state - > pi_mutex ) = = current ) )
rt_mutex_unlock ( & q . pi_state - > pi_mutex ) ;
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
/* Unqueue and drop the lock */
unqueue_me_pi ( & q ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
futex_lock_pi() key refcnt fix
This fixes a futex key reference count bug in futex_lock_pi(),
where a key's reference count is incremented twice but decremented
only once, causing the backing object to not be released.
If the futex is created in a temporary file in an ext3 file system,
this bug causes the file's inode to become an "undead" orphan,
which causes an oops from a BUG_ON() in ext3_put_super() when the
file system is unmounted. glibc's test suite is known to trigger this,
see <http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14256>.
The bug is a regression from 2.6.28-git3, namely Peter Zijlstra's
38d47c1b7075bd7ec3881141bb3629da58f88dab "[PATCH] futex: rely on
get_user_pages() for shared futexes". That commit made get_futex_key()
also increment the reference count of the futex key, and updated its
callers to decrement the key's reference count before returning.
Unfortunately the normal exit path in futex_lock_pi() wasn't corrected:
the reference count is incremented by get_futex_key() and queue_lock(),
but the normal exit path only decrements once, via unqueue_me_pi().
The fix is to put_futex_key() after unqueue_me_pi(), since 2.6.31
this is easily done by 'goto out_put_key' rather than 'goto out'.
Signed-off-by: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
2010-01-24 00:36:29 +03:00
goto out_put_key ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_unlock_put_key :
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
queue_unlock ( & q , hb ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out_put_key :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q . key ) ;
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
2008-04-30 11:55:04 +04:00
if ( to )
destroy_hrtimer_on_stack ( & to - > timer ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:02 +04:00
return ret ! = - EINTR ? ret : - ERESTARTNOINTR ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
uaddr_faulted :
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
queue_unlock ( & q , hb ) ;
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
ret = fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
if ( ret )
goto out_put_key ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
if ( ! ( flags & FLAGS_SHARED ) )
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry_private ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q . key ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
goto retry ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
}
/*
* Userspace attempted a TID - > 0 atomic transition , and failed .
* This is the in - kernel slowpath : we look up the PI state ( if any ) ,
* and do the rt - mutex unlock .
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_unlock_pi ( u32 __user * uaddr , unsigned int flags )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
{
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
struct futex_q * this , * next ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
struct plist_head * head ;
2008-09-26 21:32:20 +04:00
union futex_key key = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
u32 uval , vpid = task_pid_vnr ( current ) ;
2009-03-12 10:56:13 +03:00
int ret ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
retry :
if ( get_user ( uval , uaddr ) )
return - EFAULT ;
/*
* We release only a lock we actually own :
*/
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
if ( ( uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK ) ! = vpid )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return - EPERM ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key , VERIFY_WRITE ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
goto out ;
hb = hash_futex ( & key ) ;
spin_lock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
/*
* To avoid races , try to do the TID - > 0 atomic transition
* again . If it succeeds then we can return without waking
* anyone else up :
*/
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( ! ( uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ) & &
cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & uval , uaddr , vpid , 0 ) )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
goto pi_faulted ;
/*
* Rare case : we managed to release the lock atomically ,
* no need to wake anyone else up :
*/
2011-03-11 13:51:22 +03:00
if ( unlikely ( uval = = vpid ) )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
goto out_unlock ;
/*
* Ok , other tasks may need to be woken up - check waiters
* and do the wakeup if necessary :
*/
head = & hb - > chain ;
2007-05-09 13:35:00 +04:00
plist_for_each_entry_safe ( this , next , head , list ) {
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( ! match_futex ( & this - > key , & key ) )
continue ;
ret = wake_futex_pi ( uaddr , uval , this ) ;
/*
* The atomic access to the futex value
* generated a pagefault , so retry the
* user - access and the wakeup :
*/
if ( ret = = - EFAULT )
goto pi_faulted ;
goto out_unlock ;
}
/*
* No waiters - kernel unlocks the futex :
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
if ( ! ( uval & FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ) ) {
ret = unlock_futex_pi ( uaddr , uval ) ;
if ( ret = = - EFAULT )
goto pi_faulted ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
out_unlock :
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2008-12-30 02:49:53 +03:00
out :
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
return ret ;
pi_faulted :
2007-06-09 00:47:00 +04:00
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
2009-06-12 01:15:43 +04:00
ret = fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr ) ;
2008-12-19 02:06:34 +03:00
if ( ! ret )
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
goto retry ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return ret ;
}
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/**
* handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup ( ) - Detect early wakeup on the initial futex
* @ hb : the hash_bucket futex_q was original enqueued on
* @ q : the futex_q woken while waiting to be requeued
* @ key2 : the futex_key of the requeue target futex
* @ timeout : the timeout associated with the wait ( NULL if none )
*
* Detect if the task was woken on the initial futex as opposed to the requeue
* target futex . If so , determine if it was a timeout or a signal that caused
* the wakeup and return the appropriate error code to the caller . Must be
* called with the hb lock held .
*
* Returns
* 0 - no early wakeup detected
2009-05-20 11:22:40 +04:00
* < 0 - - ETIMEDOUT or - ERESTARTNOINTR
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
static inline
int handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup ( struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ,
struct futex_q * q , union futex_key * key2 ,
struct hrtimer_sleeper * timeout )
{
int ret = 0 ;
/*
* With the hb lock held , we avoid races while we process the wakeup .
* We only need to hold hb ( and not hb2 ) to ensure atomicity as the
* wakeup code can ' t change q . key from uaddr to uaddr2 if we hold hb .
* It can ' t be requeued from uaddr2 to something else since we don ' t
* support a PI aware source futex for requeue .
*/
if ( ! match_futex ( & q - > key , key2 ) ) {
WARN_ON ( q - > lock_ptr & & ( & hb - > lock ! = q - > lock_ptr ) ) ;
/*
* We were woken prior to requeue by a timeout or a signal .
* Unqueue the futex_q and determine which it was .
*/
2010-12-22 09:18:50 +03:00
plist_del ( & q - > list , & hb - > chain ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
2009-10-13 22:40:43 +04:00
/* Handle spurious wakeups gracefully */
2009-10-28 22:26:48 +03:00
ret = - EWOULDBLOCK ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( timeout & & ! timeout - > task )
ret = - ETIMEDOUT ;
2009-10-13 22:40:43 +04:00
else if ( signal_pending ( current ) )
2009-05-20 11:22:40 +04:00
ret = - ERESTARTNOINTR ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
}
return ret ;
}
/**
* futex_wait_requeue_pi ( ) - Wait on uaddr and take uaddr2
2009-09-22 09:29:59 +04:00
* @ uaddr : the futex we initially wait on ( non - pi )
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
* @ flags : futex flags ( FLAGS_SHARED , FLAGS_CLOCKRT , etc . ) , they must be
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
* the same type , no requeueing from private to shared , etc .
* @ val : the expected value of uaddr
* @ abs_time : absolute timeout
2009-09-22 09:29:59 +04:00
* @ bitset : 32 bit wakeup bitset set by userspace , defaults to all
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
* @ clockrt : whether to use CLOCK_REALTIME ( 1 ) or CLOCK_MONOTONIC ( 0 )
* @ uaddr2 : the pi futex we will take prior to returning to user - space
*
* The caller will wait on uaddr and will be requeued by futex_requeue ( ) to
* uaddr2 which must be PI aware . Normal wakeup will wake on uaddr2 and
* complete the acquisition of the rt_mutex prior to returning to userspace .
* This ensures the rt_mutex maintains an owner when it has waiters ; without
* one , the pi logic wouldn ' t know which task to boost / deboost , if there was a
* need to .
*
* We call schedule in futex_wait_queue_me ( ) when we enqueue and return there
* via the following :
* 1 ) wakeup on uaddr2 after an atomic lock acquisition by futex_requeue ( )
2009-08-01 03:20:10 +04:00
* 2 ) wakeup on uaddr2 after a requeue
* 3 ) signal
* 4 ) timeout
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
2009-08-01 03:20:10 +04:00
* If 3 , cleanup and return - ERESTARTNOINTR .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* If 2 , we may then block on trying to take the rt_mutex and return via :
* 5 ) successful lock
* 6 ) signal
* 7 ) timeout
* 8 ) other lock acquisition failure
*
2009-08-01 03:20:10 +04:00
* If 6 , return - EWOULDBLOCK ( restarting the syscall would do the same ) .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*
* If 4 or 7 , we cleanup and return with - ETIMEDOUT .
*
* Returns :
* 0 - On success
* < 0 - On error
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
static int futex_wait_requeue_pi ( u32 __user * uaddr , unsigned int flags ,
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
u32 val , ktime_t * abs_time , u32 bitset ,
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
u32 __user * uaddr2 )
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
{
struct hrtimer_sleeper timeout , * to = NULL ;
struct rt_mutex_waiter rt_waiter ;
struct rt_mutex * pi_mutex = NULL ;
struct futex_hash_bucket * hb ;
2010-11-09 00:40:28 +03:00
union futex_key key2 = FUTEX_KEY_INIT ;
struct futex_q q = futex_q_init ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
int res , ret ;
if ( ! bitset )
return - EINVAL ;
if ( abs_time ) {
to = & timeout ;
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
hrtimer_init_on_stack ( & to - > timer , ( flags & FLAGS_CLOCKRT ) ?
CLOCK_REALTIME : CLOCK_MONOTONIC ,
HRTIMER_MODE_ABS ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
hrtimer_init_sleeper ( to , current ) ;
hrtimer_set_expires_range_ns ( & to - > timer , * abs_time ,
current - > timer_slack_ns ) ;
}
/*
* The waiter is allocated on our stack , manipulated by the requeue
* code while we sleep on uaddr .
*/
debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter ( & rt_waiter ) ;
rt_waiter . task = NULL ;
futex: Fix regression with read only mappings
commit 7485d0d3758e8e6491a5c9468114e74dc050785d (futexes: Remove rw
parameter from get_futex_key()) in 2.6.33 fixed two problems: First, It
prevented a loop when encountering a ZERO_PAGE. Second, it fixed RW
MAP_PRIVATE futex operations by forcing the COW to occur by
unconditionally performing a write access get_user_pages_fast() to get
the page. The commit also introduced a user-mode regression in that it
broke futex operations on read-only memory maps. For example, this
breaks workloads that have one or more reader processes doing a
FUTEX_WAIT on a futex within a read only shared file mapping, and a
writer processes that has a writable mapping issuing the FUTEX_WAKE.
This fixes the regression for valid futex operations on RO mappings by
trying a RO get_user_pages_fast() when the RW get_user_pages_fast()
fails. This change makes it necessary to also check for invalid use
cases, such as anonymous RO mappings (which can never change) and the
ZERO_PAGE which the commit referenced above was written to address.
This patch does restore the original behavior with RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings, which have inherent user-mode usage problems and don't really
make sense. With this patch performing a FUTEX_WAIT within a RO
MAP_PRIVATE mapping will be successfully woken provided another process
updates the region of the underlying mapped file. However, the mmap()
man page states that for a MAP_PRIVATE mapping:
It is unspecified whether changes made to the file after
the mmap() call are visible in the mapped region.
So user-mode users attempting to use futex operations on RO MAP_PRIVATE
mappings are depending on unspecified behavior. Additionally a
RO MAP_PRIVATE mapping could fail to wake up in the following case.
Thread-A: call futex(FUTEX_WAIT, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return inode based key.
sleep on the key
Thread-B: call mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, memory-region-A)
Thread-B: write memory-region-A.
COW happen. This process's memory-region-A become related
to new COWed private (ie PageAnon=1) page.
Thread-B: call futex(FUETX_WAKE, memory-region-A).
get_futex_key() return mm based key.
IOW, we fail to wake up Thread-A.
Once again doing something like this is just silly and users who do
something like this get what they deserve.
While RO MAP_PRIVATE mappings are nonsensical, checking for a private
mapping requires walking the vmas and was deemed too costly to avoid a
userspace hang.
This Patch is based on Peter Zijlstra's initial patch with modifications to
only allow RO mappings for futex operations that need VERIFY_READ access.
Reported-by: David Oliver <david@rgmadvisors.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: zvonler@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: hughd@google.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1309450892-30676-1-git-send-email-sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2011-06-30 20:21:32 +04:00
ret = get_futex_key ( uaddr2 , flags & FLAGS_SHARED , & key2 , VERIFY_WRITE ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
if ( unlikely ( ret ! = 0 ) )
goto out ;
2009-08-14 04:36:53 +04:00
q . bitset = bitset ;
q . rt_waiter = & rt_waiter ;
q . requeue_pi_key = & key2 ;
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
/*
* Prepare to wait on uaddr . On success , increments q . key ( key1 ) ref
* count .
*/
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wait_setup ( uaddr , val , flags , & q , & hb ) ;
2009-05-20 11:18:50 +04:00
if ( ret )
goto out_key2 ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/* Queue the futex_q, drop the hb lock, wait for wakeup. */
2009-05-05 21:21:40 +04:00
futex_wait_queue_me ( hb , & q , to ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
spin_lock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
ret = handle_early_requeue_pi_wakeup ( hb , & q , & key2 , to ) ;
spin_unlock ( & hb - > lock ) ;
if ( ret )
goto out_put_keys ;
/*
* In order for us to be here , we know our q . key = = key2 , and since
* we took the hb - > lock above , we also know that futex_requeue ( ) has
* completed and we no longer have to concern ourselves with a wakeup
2010-10-17 19:35:04 +04:00
* race with the atomic proxy lock acquisition by the requeue code . The
* futex_requeue dropped our key1 reference and incremented our key2
* reference count .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
/* Check if the requeue code acquired the second futex for us. */
if ( ! q . rt_waiter ) {
/*
* Got the lock . We might not be the anticipated owner if we
* did a lock - steal - fix up the PI - state in that case .
*/
if ( q . pi_state & & ( q . pi_state - > owner ! = current ) ) {
spin_lock ( q . lock_ptr ) ;
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
ret = fixup_pi_state_owner ( uaddr2 , & q , current ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
spin_unlock ( q . lock_ptr ) ;
}
} else {
/*
* We have been woken up by futex_unlock_pi ( ) , a timeout , or a
* signal . futex_unlock_pi ( ) will not destroy the lock_ptr nor
* the pi_state .
*/
WARN_ON ( ! & q . pi_state ) ;
pi_mutex = & q . pi_state - > pi_mutex ;
ret = rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock ( pi_mutex , to , & rt_waiter , 1 ) ;
debug_rt_mutex_free_waiter ( & rt_waiter ) ;
spin_lock ( q . lock_ptr ) ;
/*
* Fixup the pi_state owner and possibly acquire the lock if we
* haven ' t already .
*/
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
res = fixup_owner ( uaddr2 , & q , ! ret ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
/*
* If fixup_owner ( ) returned an error , proprogate that . If it
2009-09-22 09:29:59 +04:00
* acquired the lock , clear - ETIMEDOUT or - EINTR .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
if ( res )
ret = ( res < 0 ) ? res : 0 ;
/* Unqueue and drop the lock. */
unqueue_me_pi ( & q ) ;
}
/*
* If fixup_pi_state_owner ( ) faulted and was unable to handle the
* fault , unlock the rt_mutex and return the fault to userspace .
*/
if ( ret = = - EFAULT ) {
if ( rt_mutex_owner ( pi_mutex ) = = current )
rt_mutex_unlock ( pi_mutex ) ;
} else if ( ret = = - EINTR ) {
/*
2009-08-01 03:20:10 +04:00
* We ' ve already been requeued , but cannot restart by calling
* futex_lock_pi ( ) directly . We could restart this syscall , but
* it would detect that the user space " val " changed and return
* - EWOULDBLOCK . Save the overhead of the restart and return
* - EWOULDBLOCK directly .
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
*/
2009-05-20 01:04:59 +04:00
ret = - EWOULDBLOCK ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
}
out_put_keys :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & q . key ) ;
2009-05-20 11:18:50 +04:00
out_key2 :
2010-11-10 15:30:36 +03:00
put_futex_key ( & key2 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
out :
if ( to ) {
hrtimer_cancel ( & to - > timer ) ;
destroy_hrtimer_on_stack ( & to - > timer ) ;
}
return ret ;
}
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* Support for robust futexes : the kernel cleans up held futexes at
* thread exit time .
*
* Implementation : user - space maintains a per - thread list of locks it
* is holding . Upon do_exit ( ) , the kernel carefully walks this list ,
* and marks all locks that are owned by this thread with the
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
* FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit , and wakes up a waiter ( if any ) . The list is
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
* always manipulated with the lock held , so the list is private and
* per - thread . Userspace also maintains a per - thread ' list_op_pending '
* field , to allow the kernel to clean up if the thread dies after
* acquiring the lock , but just before it could have added itself to
* the list . There can only be one such pending lock .
*/
/**
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* sys_set_robust_list ( ) - Set the robust - futex list head of a task
* @ head : pointer to the list - head
* @ len : length of the list - head , as userspace expects
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
*/
2009-01-14 16:14:33 +03:00
SYSCALL_DEFINE2 ( set_robust_list , struct robust_list_head __user * , head ,
size_t , len )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
{
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( ! futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
return - ENOSYS ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* The kernel knows only one size for now :
*/
if ( unlikely ( len ! = sizeof ( * head ) ) )
return - EINVAL ;
current - > robust_list = head ;
return 0 ;
}
/**
2009-09-22 09:30:22 +04:00
* sys_get_robust_list ( ) - Get the robust - futex list head of a task
* @ pid : pid of the process [ zero for current task ]
* @ head_ptr : pointer to a list - head pointer , the kernel fills it in
* @ len_ptr : pointer to a length field , the kernel fills in the header size
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
*/
2009-01-14 16:14:33 +03:00
SYSCALL_DEFINE3 ( get_robust_list , int , pid ,
struct robust_list_head __user * __user * , head_ptr ,
size_t __user * , len_ptr )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
{
2006-10-11 01:46:07 +04:00
struct robust_list_head __user * head ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
unsigned long ret ;
2008-11-14 02:39:19 +03:00
const struct cred * cred = current_cred ( ) , * pcred ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( ! futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
return - ENOSYS ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
if ( ! pid )
head = current - > robust_list ;
else {
struct task_struct * p ;
ret = - ESRCH ;
2006-09-29 13:00:55 +04:00
rcu_read_lock ( ) ;
2007-10-19 10:40:16 +04:00
p = find_task_by_vpid ( pid ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
if ( ! p )
goto err_unlock ;
ret = - EPERM ;
2008-11-14 02:39:19 +03:00
pcred = __task_cred ( p ) ;
2011-03-24 02:43:24 +03:00
/* If victim is in different user_ns, then uids are not
comparable , so we must have CAP_SYS_PTRACE */
if ( cred - > user - > user_ns ! = pcred - > user - > user_ns ) {
if ( ! ns_capable ( pcred - > user - > user_ns , CAP_SYS_PTRACE ) )
goto err_unlock ;
goto ok ;
}
/* If victim is in same user_ns, then uids are comparable */
2008-11-14 02:39:19 +03:00
if ( cred - > euid ! = pcred - > euid & &
cred - > euid ! = pcred - > uid & &
2011-03-24 02:43:24 +03:00
! ns_capable ( pcred - > user - > user_ns , CAP_SYS_PTRACE ) )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
goto err_unlock ;
2011-03-24 02:43:24 +03:00
ok :
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
head = p - > robust_list ;
2006-09-29 13:00:55 +04:00
rcu_read_unlock ( ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
}
if ( put_user ( sizeof ( * head ) , len_ptr ) )
return - EFAULT ;
return put_user ( head , head_ptr ) ;
err_unlock :
2006-09-29 13:00:55 +04:00
rcu_read_unlock ( ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return ret ;
}
/*
* Process a futex - list entry , check whether it ' s owned by the
* dying task , and do notification if so :
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
int handle_futex_death ( u32 __user * uaddr , struct task_struct * curr , int pi )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
{
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
u32 uval , nval , mval ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
2006-03-27 13:16:27 +04:00
retry :
if ( get_user ( uval , uaddr ) )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return - 1 ;
2007-10-19 10:40:14 +04:00
if ( ( uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK ) = = task_pid_vnr ( curr ) ) {
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* Ok , this dying thread is truly holding a futex
* of interest . Set the OWNER_DIED bit atomically
* via cmpxchg , and if the value had FUTEX_WAITERS
* set , wake up a waiter ( if any ) . ( We have to do a
* futex_wake ( ) even if OWNER_DIED is already set -
* to handle the rare but possible case of recursive
* thread - death . ) The rest of the cleanup is done in
* userspace .
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
mval = ( uval & FUTEX_WAITERS ) | FUTEX_OWNER_DIED ;
2011-03-14 12:34:35 +03:00
/*
* We are not holding a lock here , but we want to have
* the pagefault_disable / enable ( ) protection because
* we want to handle the fault gracefully . If the
* access fails we try to fault in the futex with R / W
* verification via get_user_pages . get_user ( ) above
* does not guarantee R / W access . If that fails we
* give up and leave the futex locked .
*/
if ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & nval , uaddr , uval , mval ) ) {
if ( fault_in_user_writeable ( uaddr ) )
return - 1 ;
goto retry ;
}
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
if ( nval ! = uval )
2006-03-27 13:16:27 +04:00
goto retry ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
/*
* Wake robust non - PI futexes here . The wakeup of
* PI futexes happens in exit_pi_state ( ) :
*/
2007-07-16 10:41:20 +04:00
if ( ! pi & & ( uval & FUTEX_WAITERS ) )
2008-09-26 21:32:23 +04:00
futex_wake ( uaddr , 1 , 1 , FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
}
return 0 ;
}
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
/*
* Fetch a robust - list pointer . Bit 0 signals PI futexes :
*/
static inline int fetch_robust_entry ( struct robust_list __user * * entry ,
2006-10-11 01:46:07 +04:00
struct robust_list __user * __user * head ,
2010-09-14 16:43:46 +04:00
unsigned int * pi )
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
{
unsigned long uentry ;
2006-10-11 01:46:07 +04:00
if ( get_user ( uentry , ( unsigned long __user * ) head ) )
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
return - EFAULT ;
2006-10-11 01:46:07 +04:00
* entry = ( void __user * ) ( uentry & ~ 1UL ) ;
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
* pi = uentry & 1 ;
return 0 ;
}
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* Walk curr - > robust_list ( very carefully , it ' s a userspace list ! )
* and mark any locks found there dead , and notify any waiters .
*
* We silently return on any sign of list - walking problem .
*/
void exit_robust_list ( struct task_struct * curr )
{
struct robust_list_head __user * head = curr - > robust_list ;
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
struct robust_list __user * entry , * next_entry , * pending ;
2010-11-04 22:00:00 +03:00
unsigned int limit = ROBUST_LIST_LIMIT , pi , pip ;
unsigned int uninitialized_var ( next_pi ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
unsigned long futex_offset ;
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
int rc ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( ! futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
return ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* Fetch the list head ( which was registered earlier , via
* sys_set_robust_list ( ) ) :
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
if ( fetch_robust_entry ( & entry , & head - > list . next , & pi ) )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return ;
/*
* Fetch the relative futex offset :
*/
if ( get_user ( futex_offset , & head - > futex_offset ) )
return ;
/*
* Fetch any possibly pending lock - add first , and handle it
* if it exists :
*/
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
if ( fetch_robust_entry ( & pending , & head - > list_op_pending , & pip ) )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return ;
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
next_entry = NULL ; /* avoid warning with gcc */
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
while ( entry ! = & head - > list ) {
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
/*
* Fetch the next entry in the list before calling
* handle_futex_death :
*/
rc = fetch_robust_entry ( & next_entry , & entry - > next , & next_pi ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* A pending lock might already be on the list , so
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
* don ' t process it twice :
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
*/
if ( entry ! = pending )
2006-10-11 01:46:07 +04:00
if ( handle_futex_death ( ( void __user * ) entry + futex_offset ,
2006-07-29 07:17:57 +04:00
curr , pi ) )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return ;
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
if ( rc )
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
return ;
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
entry = next_entry ;
pi = next_pi ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
/*
* Avoid excessively long or circular lists :
*/
if ( ! - - limit )
break ;
cond_resched ( ) ;
}
2007-10-01 12:20:13 +04:00
if ( pending )
handle_futex_death ( ( void __user * ) pending + futex_offset ,
curr , pip ) ;
2006-03-27 13:16:22 +04:00
}
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
long do_futex ( u32 __user * uaddr , int op , u32 val , ktime_t * timeout ,
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
u32 __user * uaddr2 , u32 val2 , u32 val3 )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
int ret = - ENOSYS , cmd = op & FUTEX_CMD_MASK ;
unsigned int flags = 0 ;
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
if ( ! ( op & FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG ) )
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
flags | = FLAGS_SHARED ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
if ( op & FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME ) {
flags | = FLAGS_CLOCKRT ;
if ( cmd ! = FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET & & cmd ! = FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI )
return - ENOSYS ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
switch ( cmd ) {
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
case FUTEX_WAIT :
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
val3 = FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY ;
case FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wait ( uaddr , flags , val , timeout , val3 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_WAKE :
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
val3 = FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY ;
case FUTEX_WAKE_BITSET :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wake ( uaddr , flags , val , val3 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_REQUEUE :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_requeue ( uaddr , flags , uaddr2 , val , val2 , NULL , 0 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_requeue ( uaddr , flags , uaddr2 , val , val2 , & val3 , 0 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
break ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
case FUTEX_WAKE_OP :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wake_op ( uaddr , flags , uaddr2 , val , val2 , val3 ) ;
[PATCH] FUTEX_WAKE_OP: pthread_cond_signal() speedup
ATM pthread_cond_signal is unnecessarily slow, because it wakes one waiter
(which at least on UP usually means an immediate context switch to one of
the waiter threads). This waiter wakes up and after a few instructions it
attempts to acquire the cv internal lock, but that lock is still held by
the thread calling pthread_cond_signal. So it goes to sleep and eventually
the signalling thread is scheduled in, unlocks the internal lock and wakes
the waiter again.
Now, before 2003-09-21 NPTL was using FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal
to avoid this performance issue, but it was removed when locks were
redesigned to the 3 state scheme (unlocked, locked uncontended, locked
contended).
Following scenario shows why simply using FUTEX_REQUEUE in
pthread_cond_signal together with using lll_mutex_unlock_force in place of
lll_mutex_unlock is not enough and probably why it has been disabled at
that time:
The number is value in cv->__data.__lock.
thr1 thr2 thr3
0 pthread_cond_wait
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__futex, futexval)
0 pthread_cond_signal
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
1 pthread_cond_signal
2 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
2 lll_futex_wait (&cv->__data.__lock, 2)
2 lll_futex_requeue (&cv->__data.__futex, 0, 1, &cv->__data.__lock)
# FUTEX_REQUEUE, not FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE
2 lll_mutex_unlock_force (cv->__data.__lock)
0 cv->__data.__lock = 0
0 lll_futex_wake (&cv->__data.__lock, 1)
1 lll_mutex_lock (cv->__data.__lock)
0 lll_mutex_unlock (cv->__data.__lock)
# Here, lll_mutex_unlock doesn't know there are threads waiting
# on the internal cv's lock
Now, I believe it is possible to use FUTEX_REQUEUE in pthread_cond_signal,
but it will cost us not one, but 2 extra syscalls and, what's worse, one of
these extra syscalls will be done for every single waiting loop in
pthread_cond_*wait.
We would need to use lll_mutex_unlock_force in pthread_cond_signal after
requeue and lll_mutex_cond_lock in pthread_cond_*wait after lll_futex_wait.
Another alternative is to do the unlocking pthread_cond_signal needs to do
(the lock can't be unlocked before lll_futex_wake, as that is racy) in the
kernel.
I have implemented both variants, futex-requeue-glibc.patch is the first
one and futex-wake_op{,-glibc}.patch is the unlocking inside of the kernel.
The kernel interface allows userland to specify how exactly an unlocking
operation should look like (some atomic arithmetic operation with optional
constant argument and comparison of the previous futex value with another
constant).
It has been implemented just for ppc*, x86_64 and i?86, for other
architectures I'm including just a stub header which can be used as a
starting point by maintainers to write support for their arches and ATM
will just return -ENOSYS for FUTEX_WAKE_OP. The requeue patch has been
(lightly) tested just on x86_64, the wake_op patch on ppc64 kernel running
32-bit and 64-bit NPTL and x86_64 kernel running 32-bit and 64-bit NPTL.
With the following benchmark on UP x86-64 I get:
for i in nptl-orig nptl-requeue nptl-wake_op; do echo time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench; \
for j in 1 2; do echo ( time elf/ld.so --library-path .:$i /tmp/bench ) 2>&1; done; done
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-orig /tmp/bench
real 0m0.655s user 0m0.253s sys 0m0.403s
real 0m0.657s user 0m0.269s sys 0m0.388s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-requeue /tmp/bench
real 0m0.496s user 0m0.225s sys 0m0.271s
real 0m0.531s user 0m0.242s sys 0m0.288s
time elf/ld.so --library-path .:nptl-wake_op /tmp/bench
real 0m0.380s user 0m0.176s sys 0m0.204s
real 0m0.382s user 0m0.175s sys 0m0.207s
The benchmark is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00001.txt
Older futex-requeue-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00002.txt
Older futex-wake_op-glibc.patch version is at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-03/txt00003.txt
Will post a new version (just x86-64 fixes so that the patch
applies against pthread_cond_signal.S) to libc-hacker ml soon.
Attached is the kernel FUTEX_WAKE_OP patch as well as a simple-minded
testcase that will not test the atomicity of the operation, but at least
check if the threads that should have been woken up are woken up and
whether the arithmetic operation in the kernel gave the expected results.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yuasa@hh.iij4u.or.jp>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2005-09-07 02:16:25 +04:00
break ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
case FUTEX_LOCK_PI :
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_lock_pi ( uaddr , flags , val , timeout , 0 ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI :
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_unlock_pi ( uaddr , flags ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI :
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
if ( futex_cmpxchg_enabled )
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_lock_pi ( uaddr , flags , 0 , timeout , 1 ) ;
2006-06-27 13:54:58 +04:00
break ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
case FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI :
val3 = FUTEX_BITSET_MATCH_ANY ;
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_wait_requeue_pi ( uaddr , flags , val , timeout , val3 ,
uaddr2 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
break ;
case FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI :
2010-11-09 00:10:09 +03:00
ret = futex_requeue ( uaddr , flags , uaddr2 , val , val2 , & val3 , 1 ) ;
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
break ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
default :
ret = - ENOSYS ;
}
return ret ;
}
2009-01-14 16:14:10 +03:00
SYSCALL_DEFINE6 ( futex , u32 __user * , uaddr , int , op , u32 , val ,
struct timespec __user * , utime , u32 __user * , uaddr2 ,
u32 , val3 )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
struct timespec ts ;
ktime_t t , * tp = NULL ;
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
u32 val2 = 0 ;
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
int cmd = op & FUTEX_CMD_MASK ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2008-02-01 19:45:14 +03:00
if ( utime & & ( cmd = = FUTEX_WAIT | | cmd = = FUTEX_LOCK_PI | |
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
cmd = = FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET | |
cmd = = FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI ) ) {
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( copy_from_user ( & ts , utime , sizeof ( ts ) ) ! = 0 )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return - EFAULT ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
if ( ! timespec_valid ( & ts ) )
2006-03-31 14:31:32 +04:00
return - EINVAL ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
t = timespec_to_ktime ( ts ) ;
FUTEX: new PRIVATE futexes
Analysis of current linux futex code :
--------------------------------------
A central hash table futex_queues[] holds all contexts (futex_q) of waiting
threads.
Each futex_wait()/futex_wait() has to obtain a spinlock on a hash slot to
perform lookups or insert/deletion of a futex_q.
When a futex_wait() is done, calling thread has to :
1) - Obtain a read lock on mmap_sem to be able to validate the user pointer
(calling find_vma()). This validation tells us if the futex uses
an inode based store (mapped file), or mm based store (anonymous mem)
2) - compute a hash key
3) - Atomic increment of reference counter on an inode or a mm_struct
4) - lock part of futex_queues[] hash table
5) - perform the test on value of futex.
(rollback is value != expected_value, returns EWOULDBLOCK)
(various loops if test triggers mm faults)
6) queue the context into hash table, release the lock got in 4)
7) - release the read_lock on mmap_sem
<block>
8) Eventually unqueue the context (but rarely, as this part may be done
by the futex_wake())
Futexes were designed to improve scalability but current implementation has
various problems :
- Central hashtable :
This means scalability problems if many processes/threads want to use
futexes at the same time.
This means NUMA unbalance because this hashtable is located on one node.
- Using mmap_sem on every futex() syscall :
Even if mmap_sem is a rw_semaphore, up_read()/down_read() are doing atomic
ops on mmap_sem, dirtying cache line :
- lot of cache line ping pongs on SMP configurations.
mmap_sem is also extensively used by mm code (page faults, mmap()/munmap())
Highly threaded processes might suffer from mmap_sem contention.
mmap_sem is also used by oprofile code. Enabling oprofile hurts threaded
programs because of contention on the mmap_sem cache line.
- Using an atomic_inc()/atomic_dec() on inode ref counter or mm ref counter:
It's also a cache line ping pong on SMP. It also increases mmap_sem hold time
because of cache misses.
Most of these scalability problems come from the fact that futexes are in
one global namespace. As we use a central hash table, we must make sure
they are all using the same reference (given by the mm subsystem). We
chose to force all futexes be 'shared'. This has a cost.
But fact is POSIX defined PRIVATE and SHARED, allowing clear separation,
and optimal performance if carefuly implemented. Time has come for linux
to have better threading performance.
The goal is to permit new futex commands to avoid :
- Taking the mmap_sem semaphore, conflicting with other subsystems.
- Modifying a ref_count on mm or an inode, still conflicting with mm or fs.
This is possible because, for one process using PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
futexes, we only need to distinguish futexes by their virtual address, no
matter the underlying mm storage is.
If glibc wants to exploit this new infrastructure, it should use new
_PRIVATE futex subcommands for PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE futexes. And be
prepared to fallback on old subcommands for old kernels. Using one global
variable with the FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG or 0 value should be OK.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED futexes should still use the old subcommands.
Compatibility with old applications is preserved, they still hit the
scalability problems, but new applications can fly :)
Note : the same SHARED futex (mapped on a file) can be used by old binaries
*and* new binaries, because both binaries will use the old subcommands.
Note : Vast majority of futexes should be using PROCESS_PRIVATE semantic,
as this is the default semantic. Almost all applications should benefit
of this changes (new kernel and updated libc)
Some bench results on a Pentium M 1.6 GHz (SMP kernel on a UP machine)
/* calling futex_wait(addr, value) with value != *addr */
433 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (mixing 2 futexes)
424 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT) call (using one futex)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (mixing 2 futexes)
334 cycles per futex(FUTEX_WAIT_PRIVATE) call (using one futex)
For reference :
187 cycles per getppid() call
188 cycles per umask() call
181 cycles per ni_syscall() call
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@bull.net>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-09 13:35:04 +04:00
if ( cmd = = FUTEX_WAIT )
2008-02-13 11:20:43 +03:00
t = ktime_add_safe ( ktime_get ( ) , t ) ;
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
tp = & t ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
/*
2009-04-04 00:40:49 +04:00
* requeue parameter in ' utime ' if cmd = = FUTEX_ * _REQUEUE_ * .
2007-07-31 11:38:51 +04:00
* number of waiters to wake in ' utime ' if cmd = = FUTEX_WAKE_OP .
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
*/
2007-07-31 11:38:51 +04:00
if ( cmd = = FUTEX_REQUEUE | | cmd = = FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE | |
2009-04-21 09:22:22 +04:00
cmd = = FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE_PI | | cmd = = FUTEX_WAKE_OP )
[PATCH] pi-futex: futex code cleanups
We are pleased to announce "lightweight userspace priority inheritance" (PI)
support for futexes. The following patchset and glibc patch implements it,
ontop of the robust-futexes patchset which is included in 2.6.16-mm1.
We are calling it lightweight for 3 reasons:
- in the user-space fastpath a PI-enabled futex involves no kernel work
(or any other PI complexity) at all. No registration, no extra kernel
calls - just pure fast atomic ops in userspace.
- in the slowpath (in the lock-contention case), the system call and
scheduling pattern is in fact better than that of normal futexes, due to
the 'integrated' nature of FUTEX_LOCK_PI. [more about that further down]
- the in-kernel PI implementation is streamlined around the mutex
abstraction, with strict rules that keep the implementation relatively
simple: only a single owner may own a lock (i.e. no read-write lock
support), only the owner may unlock a lock, no recursive locking, etc.
Priority Inheritance - why, oh why???
-------------------------------------
Many of you heard the horror stories about the evil PI code circling Linux for
years, which makes no real sense at all and is only used by buggy applications
and which has horrible overhead. Some of you have dreaded this very moment,
when someone actually submits working PI code ;-)
So why would we like to see PI support for futexes?
We'd like to see it done purely for technological reasons. We dont think it's
a buggy concept, we think it's useful functionality to offer to applications,
which functionality cannot be achieved in other ways. We also think it's the
right thing to do, and we think we've got the right arguments and the right
numbers to prove that. We also believe that we can address all the
counter-arguments as well. For these reasons (and the reasons outlined below)
we are submitting this patch-set for upstream kernel inclusion.
What are the benefits of PI?
The short reply:
----------------
User-space PI helps achieving/improving determinism for user-space
applications. In the best-case, it can help achieve determinism and
well-bound latencies. Even in the worst-case, PI will improve the statistical
distribution of locking related application delays.
The longer reply:
-----------------
Firstly, sharing locks between multiple tasks is a common programming
technique that often cannot be replaced with lockless algorithms. As we can
see it in the kernel [which is a quite complex program in itself], lockless
structures are rather the exception than the norm - the current ratio of
lockless vs. locky code for shared data structures is somewhere between 1:10
and 1:100. Lockless is hard, and the complexity of lockless algorithms often
endangers to ability to do robust reviews of said code. I.e. critical RT
apps often choose lock structures to protect critical data structures, instead
of lockless algorithms. Furthermore, there are cases (like shared hardware,
or other resource limits) where lockless access is mathematically impossible.
Media players (such as Jack) are an example of reasonable application design
with multiple tasks (with multiple priority levels) sharing short-held locks:
for example, a highprio audio playback thread is combined with medium-prio
construct-audio-data threads and low-prio display-colory-stuff threads. Add
video and decoding to the mix and we've got even more priority levels.
So once we accept that synchronization objects (locks) are an unavoidable fact
of life, and once we accept that multi-task userspace apps have a very fair
expectation of being able to use locks, we've got to think about how to offer
the option of a deterministic locking implementation to user-space.
Most of the technical counter-arguments against doing priority inheritance
only apply to kernel-space locks. But user-space locks are different, there
we cannot disable interrupts or make the task non-preemptible in a critical
section, so the 'use spinlocks' argument does not apply (user-space spinlocks
have the same priority inversion problems as other user-space locking
constructs). Fact is, pretty much the only technique that currently enables
good determinism for userspace locks (such as futex-based pthread mutexes) is
priority inheritance:
Currently (without PI), if a high-prio and a low-prio task shares a lock [this
is a quite common scenario for most non-trivial RT applications], even if all
critical sections are coded carefully to be deterministic (i.e. all critical
sections are short in duration and only execute a limited number of
instructions), the kernel cannot guarantee any deterministic execution of the
high-prio task: any medium-priority task could preempt the low-prio task while
it holds the shared lock and executes the critical section, and could delay it
indefinitely.
Implementation:
---------------
As mentioned before, the userspace fastpath of PI-enabled pthread mutexes
involves no kernel work at all - they behave quite similarly to normal
futex-based locks: a 0 value means unlocked, and a value==TID means locked.
(This is the same method as used by list-based robust futexes.) Userspace uses
atomic ops to lock/unlock these mutexes without entering the kernel.
To handle the slowpath, we have added two new futex ops:
FUTEX_LOCK_PI
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI
If the lock-acquire fastpath fails, [i.e. an atomic transition from 0 to TID
fails], then FUTEX_LOCK_PI is called. The kernel does all the remaining work:
if there is no futex-queue attached to the futex address yet then the code
looks up the task that owns the futex [it has put its own TID into the futex
value], and attaches a 'PI state' structure to the futex-queue. The pi_state
includes an rt-mutex, which is a PI-aware, kernel-based synchronization
object. The 'other' task is made the owner of the rt-mutex, and the
FUTEX_WAITERS bit is atomically set in the futex value. Then this task tries
to lock the rt-mutex, on which it blocks. Once it returns, it has the mutex
acquired, and it sets the futex value to its own TID and returns. Userspace
has no other work to perform - it now owns the lock, and futex value contains
FUTEX_WAITERS|TID.
If the unlock side fastpath succeeds, [i.e. userspace manages to do a TID ->
0 atomic transition of the futex value], then no kernel work is triggered.
If the unlock fastpath fails (because the FUTEX_WAITERS bit is set), then
FUTEX_UNLOCK_PI is called, and the kernel unlocks the futex on the behalf of
userspace - and it also unlocks the attached pi_state->rt_mutex and thus wakes
up any potential waiters.
Note that under this approach, contrary to other PI-futex approaches, there is
no prior 'registration' of a PI-futex. [which is not quite possible anyway,
due to existing ABI properties of pthread mutexes.]
Also, under this scheme, 'robustness' and 'PI' are two orthogonal properties
of futexes, and all four combinations are possible: futex, robust-futex,
PI-futex, robust+PI-futex.
glibc support:
--------------
Ulrich Drepper and Jakub Jelinek have written glibc support for PI-futexes
(and robust futexes), enabling robust and PI (PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT) POSIX
mutexes. (PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT support will be added later on too, no
additional kernel changes are needed for that). [NOTE: The glibc patch is
obviously inofficial and unsupported without matching upstream kernel
functionality.]
the patch-queue and the glibc patch can also be downloaded from:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/PI-futex-patches/
Many thanks go to the people who helped us create this kernel feature: Steven
Rostedt, Esben Nielsen, Benedikt Spranger, Daniel Walker, John Cooper, Arjan
van de Ven, Oleg Nesterov and others. Credits for related prior projects goes
to Dirk Grambow, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez, Bill Huey and many others.
Clean up the futex code, before adding more features to it:
- use u32 as the futex field type - that's the ABI
- use __user and pointers to u32 instead of unsigned long
- code style / comment style cleanups
- rename hash-bucket name from 'bh' to 'hb'.
I checked the pre and post futex.o object files to make sure this
patch has no code effects.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-27 13:54:47 +04:00
val2 = ( u32 ) ( unsigned long ) utime ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
2007-05-09 13:35:02 +04:00
return do_futex ( uaddr , op , val , tp , uaddr2 , val2 , val3 ) ;
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
}
2008-03-27 06:52:15 +03:00
static int __init futex_init ( void )
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
{
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
u32 curval ;
2008-02-24 02:23:55 +03:00
int i ;
2006-12-07 07:39:03 +03:00
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
/*
* This will fail and we want it . Some arch implementations do
* runtime detection of the futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic ( )
* functionality . We want to know that before we call in any
* of the complex code paths . Also we want to prevent
* registration of robust lists in that case . NULL is
* guaranteed to fault and we get - EFAULT on functional
2010-10-13 22:02:34 +04:00
* implementation , the non - functional ones will return
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
* - ENOSYS .
*/
2011-03-11 05:48:51 +03:00
if ( cmpxchg_futex_value_locked ( & curval , NULL , 0 , 0 ) = = - EFAULT )
2008-02-24 02:23:57 +03:00
futex_cmpxchg_enabled = 1 ;
2008-02-24 02:23:55 +03:00
for ( i = 0 ; i < ARRAY_SIZE ( futex_queues ) ; i + + ) {
2011-07-08 04:27:59 +04:00
plist_head_init ( & futex_queues [ i ] . chain ) ;
2008-02-24 02:23:55 +03:00
spin_lock_init ( & futex_queues [ i ] . lock ) ;
}
2005-04-17 02:20:36 +04:00
return 0 ;
}
2008-03-27 06:52:15 +03:00
__initcall ( futex_init ) ;