locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes

The current Wound-Wait mutex algorithm is actually not Wound-Wait but
Wait-Die. Implement also Wound-Wait as a per-ww-class choice. Wound-Wait
is, contrary to Wait-Die a preemptive algorithm and is known to generate
fewer backoffs. Testing reveals that this is true if the
number of simultaneous contending transactions is small.
As the number of simultaneous contending threads increases, Wait-Wound
becomes inferior to Wait-Die in terms of elapsed time.
Possibly due to the larger number of held locks of sleeping transactions.

Update documentation and callers.

Timings using git://people.freedesktop.org/~thomash/ww_mutex_test
tag patch-18-06-15

Each thread runs 100000 batches of lock / unlock 800 ww mutexes randomly
chosen out of 100000. Four core Intel x86_64:

Algorithm    #threads       Rollbacks  time
Wound-Wait   4              ~100       ~17s.
Wait-Die     4              ~150000    ~19s.
Wound-Wait   16             ~360000    ~109s.
Wait-Die     16             ~450000    ~82s.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Co-authored-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 148 insertions, 17 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index cfe48419b7d0..1a81a1257b3f 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -174,6 +174,21 @@ static inline bool __mutex_waiter_is_first(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_wait
 }
 
 /*
+ * Add @waiter to a given location in the lock wait_list and set the
+ * FLAG_WAITERS flag if it's the first waiter.
+ */
+static void __sched
+__mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
+		   struct list_head *list)
+{
+	debug_mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, current);
+
+	list_add_tail(&waiter->list, list);
+	if (__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, waiter))
+		__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
+}
+
+/*
  * Give up ownership to a specific task, when @task = NULL, this is equivalent
  * to a regular unlock. Sets PICKUP on a handoff, clears HANDOF, preserves
  * WAITERS. Provides RELEASE semantics like a regular unlock, the
@@ -249,6 +264,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock);
  *   The newer transactions are killed when:
  *     It (the new transaction) makes a request for a lock being held
  *     by an older transaction.
+ *
+ * Wound-Wait:
+ *   The newer transactions are wounded when:
+ *     An older transaction makes a request for a lock being held by
+ *     the newer transaction.
  */
 
 /*
@@ -320,6 +340,9 @@ static bool __sched
 __ww_mutex_die(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 	       struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
 {
+	if (!ww_ctx->is_wait_die)
+		return false;
+
 	if (waiter->ww_ctx->acquired > 0 &&
 			__ww_ctx_stamp_after(waiter->ww_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
 		debug_mutex_wake_waiter(lock, waiter);
@@ -330,12 +353,64 @@ __ww_mutex_die(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 }
 
 /*
+ * Wound-Wait; wound a younger @hold_ctx if it holds the lock.
+ *
+ * Wound the lock holder if there are waiters with older transactions than
+ * the lock holders. Even if multiple waiters may wound the lock holder,
+ * it's sufficient that only one does.
+ */
+static bool __ww_mutex_wound(struct mutex *lock,
+			     struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx,
+			     struct ww_acquire_ctx *hold_ctx)
+{
+	struct task_struct *owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
+
+	lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
+
+	/*
+	 * Possible through __ww_mutex_add_waiter() when we race with
+	 * ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(). In that case we'll get here again
+	 * through __ww_mutex_check_waiters().
+	 */
+	if (!hold_ctx)
+		return false;
+
+	/*
+	 * Can have !owner because of __mutex_unlock_slowpath(), but if owner,
+	 * it cannot go away because we'll have FLAG_WAITERS set and hold
+	 * wait_lock.
+	 */
+	if (!owner)
+		return false;
+
+	if (ww_ctx->acquired > 0 && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(hold_ctx, ww_ctx)) {
+		hold_ctx->wounded = 1;
+
+		/*
+		 * wake_up_process() paired with set_current_state()
+		 * inserts sufficient barriers to make sure @owner either sees
+		 * it's wounded in __ww_mutex_lock_check_stamp() or has a
+		 * wakeup pending to re-read the wounded state.
+		 */
+		if (owner != current)
+			wake_up_process(owner);
+
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	return false;
+}
+
+/*
  * We just acquired @lock under @ww_ctx, if there are later contexts waiting
- * behind us on the wait-list, check if they need to die.
+ * behind us on the wait-list, check if they need to die, or wound us.
  *
  * See __ww_mutex_add_waiter() for the list-order construction; basically the
  * list is ordered by stamp, smallest (oldest) first.
  *
+ * This relies on never mixing wait-die/wound-wait on the same wait-list;
+ * which is currently ensured by that being a ww_class property.
+ *
  * The current task must not be on the wait list.
  */
 static void __sched
@@ -349,7 +424,8 @@ __ww_mutex_check_waiters(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
 		if (!cur->ww_ctx)
 			continue;
 
-		if (__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx))
+		if (__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx) ||
+		    __ww_mutex_wound(lock, cur->ww_ctx, ww_ctx))
 			break;
 	}
 }
@@ -370,17 +446,23 @@ ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(struct ww_mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
 	 * and keep spinning, or it will acquire wait_lock, add itself
 	 * to waiter list and sleep.
 	 */
-	smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
+	smp_mb(); /* See comments above and below. */
 
 	/*
-	 * Check if lock is contended, if not there is nobody to wake up
+	 * [W] ww->ctx = ctx	    [W] MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS
+	 *     MB		        MB
+	 * [R] MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS   [R] ww->ctx
+	 *
+	 * The memory barrier above pairs with the memory barrier in
+	 * __ww_mutex_add_waiter() and makes sure we either observe ww->ctx
+	 * and/or !empty list.
 	 */
 	if (likely(!(atomic_long_read(&lock->base.owner) & MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS)))
 		return;
 
 	/*
 	 * Uh oh, we raced in fastpath, check if any of the waiters need to
-	 * die.
+	 * die or wound us.
 	 */
 	spin_lock(&lock->base.wait_lock);
 	__ww_mutex_check_waiters(&lock->base, ctx);
@@ -682,7 +764,9 @@ __ww_mutex_kill(struct mutex *lock, struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
 
 
 /*
- * Check whether we need to kill the transaction for the current lock acquire.
+ * Check the wound condition for the current lock acquire.
+ *
+ * Wound-Wait: If we're wounded, kill ourself.
  *
  * Wait-Die: If we're trying to acquire a lock already held by an older
  *           context, kill ourselves.
@@ -701,6 +785,13 @@ __ww_mutex_check_kill(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 	if (ctx->acquired == 0)
 		return 0;
 
+	if (!ctx->is_wait_die) {
+		if (ctx->wounded)
+			return __ww_mutex_kill(lock, ctx);
+
+		return 0;
+	}
+
 	if (hold_ctx && __ww_ctx_stamp_after(ctx, hold_ctx))
 		return __ww_mutex_kill(lock, ctx);
 
@@ -727,7 +818,8 @@ __ww_mutex_check_kill(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
  * Waiters without context are interspersed in FIFO order.
  *
  * Furthermore, for Wait-Die kill ourself immediately when possible (there are
- * older contexts already waiting) to avoid unnecessary waiting.
+ * older contexts already waiting) to avoid unnecessary waiting and for
+ * Wound-Wait ensure we wound the owning context when it is younger.
  */
 static inline int __sched
 __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
@@ -736,16 +828,21 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 {
 	struct mutex_waiter *cur;
 	struct list_head *pos;
+	bool is_wait_die;
 
 	if (!ww_ctx) {
-		list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &lock->wait_list);
+		__mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, &lock->wait_list);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
+	is_wait_die = ww_ctx->is_wait_die;
+
 	/*
 	 * Add the waiter before the first waiter with a higher stamp.
 	 * Waiters without a context are skipped to avoid starving
-	 * them. Wait-Die waiters may die here.
+	 * them. Wait-Die waiters may die here. Wound-Wait waiters
+	 * never die here, but they are sorted in stamp order and
+	 * may wound the lock holder.
 	 */
 	pos = &lock->wait_list;
 	list_for_each_entry_reverse(cur, &lock->wait_list, list) {
@@ -758,10 +855,12 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 			 * is no point in queueing behind it, as we'd have to
 			 * die the moment it would acquire the lock.
 			 */
-			int ret = __ww_mutex_kill(lock, ww_ctx);
+			if (is_wait_die) {
+				int ret = __ww_mutex_kill(lock, ww_ctx);
 
-			if (ret)
-				return ret;
+				if (ret)
+					return ret;
+			}
 
 			break;
 		}
@@ -772,7 +871,23 @@ __ww_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
 		__ww_mutex_die(lock, cur, ww_ctx);
 	}
 
-	list_add_tail(&waiter->list, pos);
+	__mutex_add_waiter(lock, waiter, pos);
+
+	/*
+	 * Wound-Wait: if we're blocking on a mutex owned by a younger context,
+	 * wound that such that we might proceed.
+	 */
+	if (!is_wait_die) {
+		struct ww_mutex *ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
+
+		/*
+		 * See ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(). Orders setting
+		 * MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS vs the ww->ctx load,
+		 * such that either we or the fastpath will wound @ww->ctx.
+		 */
+		smp_mb();
+		__ww_mutex_wound(lock, ww_ctx, ww->ctx);
+	}
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -796,6 +911,14 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
 		if (unlikely(ww_ctx == READ_ONCE(ww->ctx)))
 			return -EALREADY;
+
+		/*
+		 * Reset the wounded flag after a kill. No other process can
+		 * race and wound us here since they can't have a valid owner
+		 * pointer if we don't have any locks held.
+		 */
+		if (ww_ctx->acquired == 0)
+			ww_ctx->wounded = 0;
 	}
 
 	preempt_disable();
@@ -829,7 +952,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 
 	if (!use_ww_ctx) {
 		/* add waiting tasks to the end of the waitqueue (FIFO): */
-		list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &lock->wait_list);
+		__mutex_add_waiter(lock, &waiter, &lock->wait_list);
+
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES
 		waiter.ww_ctx = MUTEX_POISON_WW_CTX;
@@ -848,9 +972,6 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 
 	waiter.task = current;
 
-	if (__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter))
-		__mutex_set_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAG_WAITERS);
-
 	set_current_state(state);
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
@@ -907,6 +1028,16 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 acquired:
 	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 
+	if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx) {
+		/*
+		 * Wound-Wait; we stole the lock (!first_waiter), check the
+		 * waiters as anyone might want to wound us.
+		 */
+		if (!ww_ctx->is_wait_die &&
+		    !__mutex_waiter_is_first(lock, &waiter))
+			__ww_mutex_check_waiters(lock, ww_ctx);
+	}
+
 	mutex_remove_waiter(lock, &waiter, current);
 	if (likely(list_empty(&lock->wait_list)))
 		__mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);