aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/kernel
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2021-08-17futex: Restructure futex_requeue()Thomas Gleixner1-49/+41
No point in taking two more 'requeue_pi' conditionals just to get to the requeue. Same for the requeue_pi case just the other way round. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17futex: Correct the number of requeued waiters for PIThomas Gleixner1-0/+4
The accounting is wrong when either the PI sanity check or the requeue PI operation fails. Adjust it in the failure path. Will be simplified in the next step. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17futex: Remove bogus condition for requeue PIThomas Gleixner1-1/+1
For requeue PI it's required to establish PI state for the PI futex to which waiters are requeued. This either acquires the user space futex on behalf of the top most waiter on the inner 'waitqueue' futex, or attaches to the PI state of an existing waiter, or creates on attached to the owner of the futex. This code can retry in case of failure, but retry can never happen when the pi state was successfully created. The condition to run this code is: (task_count - nr_wake) < nr_requeue which is always true because: task_count = 0 nr_wake = 1 nr_requeue >= 0 Remove it completely. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17futex: Clarify futex_requeue() PI handlingThomas Gleixner1-38/+23
When requeuing to a PI futex, then the requeue code tries to trylock the PI futex on behalf of the topmost waiter on the inner 'waitqueue' futex. If that succeeds, then PI state has to be allocated in order to requeue further waiters to the PI futex. The comment and the code are confusing, as the PI state allocation uses lookup_pi_state(), which either attaches to an existing waiter or to the owner. As the PI futex was just acquired, there cannot be a waiter on the PI futex because the hash bucket lock is held. Clarify the comment and use attach_to_pi_owner() directly. As the task on which behalf the PI futex has been acquired is guaranteed to be alive and not exiting, this call must succeed. Add a WARN_ON() in case that fails. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17futex: Clean up stale commentsThomas Gleixner1-11/+7
The futex key reference mechanism is long gone. Clean up the stale comments which still mention it. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17futex: Validate waiter correctly in futex_proxy_trylock_atomic()Thomas Gleixner1-0/+7
The loop in futex_requeue() has a sanity check for the waiter, which is missing in futex_proxy_trylock_atomic(). In theory the key2 check is sufficient, but futexes are cursed so add it for completeness and paranoia sake. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Add mutex variant for RTThomas Gleixner2-1/+125
Add the necessary defines, helpers and API functions for replacing struct mutex on a PREEMPT_RT enabled kernel with an rtmutex based variant. No functional change when CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=n Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Implement rtmutex based ww_mutex API functionsPeter Zijlstra2-1/+77
Add the actual ww_mutex API functions which replace the mutex based variant on RT enabled kernels. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Extend the rtmutex core to support ww_mutexPeter Zijlstra4-14/+115
Add a ww acquire context pointer to the waiter and various functions and add the ww_mutex related invocations to the proper spots in the locking code, similar to the mutex based variant. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Add rt_mutex based lock type and accessorsPeter Zijlstra1-3/+3
Provide the defines for RT mutex based ww_mutexes and fix up the debug logic so it's either enabled by DEBUG_MUTEXES or DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES on RT kernels. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Add RT priority to W/W orderPeter Zijlstra1-15/+49
RT mutex based ww_mutexes cannot order based on timestamps. They have to order based on priority. Add the necessary decision logic. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Implement rt_mutex accessorsPeter Zijlstra1-0/+80
Provide the type defines and the helper inlines for rtmutex based ww_mutexes. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Abstract out internal lock accessesThomas Gleixner1-4/+19
Accessing the internal wait_lock of mutex and rtmutex is slightly different. Provide helper functions for that. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Abstract out mutex typesPeter Zijlstra1-10/+13
Some ww_mutex helper functions use pointers for the underlying mutex and mutex_waiter. The upcoming rtmutex based implementation needs to share these functions. Add and use defines for the types and replace the direct types in the affected functions. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Abstract out mutex accessorsPeter Zijlstra1-2/+14
Move the mutex related access from various ww_mutex functions into helper functions so they can be substituted for rtmutex based ww_mutex later. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Abstract out waiter enqueueingPeter Zijlstra1-6/+13
The upcoming rtmutex based ww_mutex needs a different handling for enqueueing a waiter. Split it out into a helper function. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Abstract out the waiter iterationPeter Zijlstra1-4/+53
Split out the waiter iteration functions so they can be substituted for a rtmutex based ww_mutex later. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Remove the __sched annotation from ww_mutex APIsPeter Zijlstra1-6/+6
None of these functions will be on the stack when blocking in schedule(), hence __sched is not needed. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Split out the W/W implementation logic into ↵Peter Zijlstra (Intel)2-371/+370
kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h Split the W/W mutex helper functions out into a separate header file, so they can be shared with a rtmutex based variant later. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Split up ww_mutex_unlock()Peter Zijlstra (Intel)1-11/+15
Split the ww related part out into a helper function so it can be reused for a rtmutex based ww_mutex implementation. [ mingo: Fixed bisection failure. ] Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Gather mutex_waiter initializationPeter Zijlstra2-9/+4
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/ww_mutex: Simplify lockdep annotationsPeter Zijlstra1-9/+10
No functional change. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/mutex: Make mutex::wait_lock rawThomas Gleixner1-11/+11
The wait_lock of mutex is really a low level lock. Convert it to a raw_spinlock like the wait_lock of rtmutex. [ mingo: backmerged the test_lockup.c build fix by bigeasy. ] Co-developed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/mutex: Move the 'struct mutex_waiter' definition from ↵Thomas Gleixner1-0/+13
<linux/mutex.h> to the internal header Move the mutex waiter declaration from the public <linux/mutex.h> header to the internal kernel/locking/mutex.h header. There is no reason to expose it outside of the core code. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/mutex: Consolidate core headers, remove kernel/locking/mutex-debug.hThomas Gleixner4-48/+26
Having two header files which contain just the non-debug and debug variants is mostly waste of disc space and has no real value. Stick the debug variants into the common mutex.h file as counterpart to the stubs for the non-debug case. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Squash !RT tasks to DEFAULT_PRIOPeter Zijlstra1-5/+20
Ensure all !RT tasks have the same prio such that they end up in FIFO order and aren't split up according to nice level. The reason why nice levels were taken into account so far is historical. In the early days of the rtmutex code it was done to give the PI boosting and deboosting a larger coverage. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rwlock: Provide RT variantThomas Gleixner4-1/+144
Similar to rw_semaphores, on RT the rwlock substitution is not writer fair, because it's not feasible to have a writer inherit its priority to multiple readers. Readers blocked on a writer follow the normal rules of priority inheritance. Like RT spinlocks, RT rwlocks are state preserving across the slow lock operations (contended case). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/spinlock: Provide RT variantThomas Gleixner2-0/+130
Provide the actual locking functions which make use of the general and spinlock specific rtmutex code. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17sysctl: introduce new proc handler proc_doboolJia He1-0/+42
This is to let bool variable could be correctly displayed in big/little endian sysctl procfs. sizeof(bool) is arch dependent, proc_dobool should work in all arches. Suggested-by: Pan Xinhui <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jia He <[email protected]> [thuth: rebased the patch to the current kernel version] Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <[email protected]>
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Provide the spin/rwlock core lock functionThomas Gleixner2-1/+61
A simplified version of the rtmutex slowlock function, which neither handles signals nor timeouts, and is careful about preserving the state of the blocked task across the lock operation. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Guard regular sleeping locks specific functionsThomas Gleixner3-123/+133
Guard the regular sleeping lock specific functionality, which is used for rtmutex on non-RT enabled kernels and for mutex, rtmutex and semaphores on RT enabled kernels so the code can be reused for the RT specific implementation of spinlocks and rwlocks in a different compilation unit. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Prepare RT rt_mutex_wake_q for RT locksThomas Gleixner2-3/+20
Add an rtlock_task pointer to rt_mutex_wake_q, which allows to handle the RT specific wakeup for spin/rwlock waiters. The pointer is just consuming 4/8 bytes on the stack so it is provided unconditionaly to avoid #ifdeffery all over the place. This cannot use a regular wake_q, because a task can have concurrent wakeups which would make it miss either lock or the regular wakeups, depending on what gets queued first, unless task struct gains a separate wake_q_node for this, which would be overkill, because there can only be a single task which gets woken up in the spin/rw_lock unlock path. No functional change for non-RT enabled kernels. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Use rt_mutex_wake_q_headThomas Gleixner4-23/+20
Prepare for the required state aware handling of waiter wakeups via wake_q and switch the rtmutex code over to the rtmutex specific wrapper. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Provide rt_wake_q_head and helpersThomas Gleixner2-0/+29
To handle the difference between wakeups for regular sleeping locks (mutex, rtmutex, rw_semaphore) and the wakeups for 'sleeping' spin/rwlocks on PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels correctly, it is required to provide a wake_q_head construct which allows to keep them separate. Provide a wrapper around wake_q_head and the required helpers, which will be extended with the state handling later. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Add wake_state to rt_mutex_waiterThomas Gleixner2-1/+10
Regular sleeping locks like mutexes, rtmutexes and rw_semaphores are always entering and leaving a blocking section with task state == TASK_RUNNING. On a non-RT kernel spinlocks and rwlocks never affect the task state, but on RT kernels these locks are converted to rtmutex based 'sleeping' locks. So in case of contention the task goes to block, which requires to carefully preserve the task state, and restore it after acquiring the lock taking regular wakeups for the task into account, which happened while the task was blocked. This state preserving is achieved by having a separate task state for blocking on a RT spin/rwlock and a saved_state field in task_struct along with careful handling of these wakeup scenarios in try_to_wake_up(). To avoid conditionals in the rtmutex code, store the wake state which has to be used for waking a lock waiter in rt_mutex_waiter which allows to handle the regular and RT spin/rwlocks by handing it to wake_up_state(). Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rwsem: Add rtmutex based R/W semaphore implementationThomas Gleixner1-0/+108
The RT specific R/W semaphore implementation used to restrict the number of readers to one, because a writer cannot block on multiple readers and inherit its priority or budget. The single reader restricting was painful in various ways: - Performance bottleneck for multi-threaded applications in the page fault path (mmap sem) - Progress blocker for drivers which are carefully crafted to avoid the potential reader/writer deadlock in mainline. The analysis of the writer code paths shows that properly written RT tasks should not take them. Syscalls like mmap(), file access which take mmap sem write locked have unbound latencies, which are completely unrelated to mmap sem. Other R/W sem users like graphics drivers are not suitable for RT tasks either. So there is little risk to hurt RT tasks when the RT rwsem implementation is done in the following way: - Allow concurrent readers - Make writers block until the last reader left the critical section. This blocking is not subject to priority/budget inheritance. - Readers blocked on a writer inherit their priority/budget in the normal way. There is a drawback with this scheme: R/W semaphores become writer unfair though the applications which have triggered writer starvation (mostly on mmap_sem) in the past are not really the typical workloads running on a RT system. So while it's unlikely to hit writer starvation, it's possible. If there are unexpected workloads on RT systems triggering it, the problem has to be revisited. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rt: Add base code for RT rw_semaphore and rwlockThomas Gleixner1-0/+263
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphores and rwlocks are substituted with an rtmutex and a reader count. The implementation is writer unfair, as it is not feasible to do priority inheritance on multiple readers, but experience has shown that real-time workloads are not the typical workloads which are sensitive to writer starvation. The inner workings of rw_semaphores and rwlocks on RT are almost identical except for the task state and signal handling. rw_semaphores are not state preserving over a contention, they are expected to enter and leave with state == TASK_RUNNING. rwlocks have a mechanism to preserve the state of the task at entry and restore it after unblocking taking potential non-lock related wakeups into account. rw_semaphores can also be subject to signal handling interrupting a blocked state, while rwlocks ignore signals. To avoid code duplication, provide a shared implementation which takes the small difference vs. state and signals into account. The code is included into the relevant rw_semaphore/rwlock base code and compiled for each use case separately. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Provide rt_mutex_slowlock_locked()Thomas Gleixner2-43/+59
Split the inner workings of rt_mutex_slowlock() out into a separate function, which can be reused by the upcoming RT lock substitutions, e.g. for rw_semaphores. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Split out the inner parts of 'struct rtmutex'Peter Zijlstra5-73/+80
RT builds substitutions for rwsem, mutex, spinlock and rwlock around rtmutexes. Split the inner working out so each lock substitution can use them with the appropriate lockdep annotations. This avoids having an extra unused lockdep map in the wrapped rtmutex. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Split API from implementationThomas Gleixner4-498/+514
Prepare for reusing the inner functions of rtmutex for RT lock substitutions: introduce kernel/locking/rtmutex_api.c and move them there. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Switch to from cmpxchg_*() to try_cmpxchg_*()Thomas Gleixner1-2/+2
Allows the compiler to generate better code depending on the architecture. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Convert macros to inlinesSebastian Andrzej Siewior1-4/+27
Inlines are type-safe... Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17sched/core: Provide a scheduling point for RT locksThomas Gleixner1-1/+19
RT enabled kernels substitute spin/rwlocks with 'sleeping' variants based on rtmutexes. Blocking on such a lock is similar to preemption versus: - I/O scheduling and worker handling, because these functions might block on another substituted lock, or come from a lock contention within these functions. - RCU considers this like a preemption, because the task might be in a read side critical section. Add a separate scheduling point for this, and hand a new scheduling mode argument to __schedule() which allows, along with separate mode masks, to handle this gracefully from within the scheduler, without proliferating that to other subsystems like RCU. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17sched/core: Rework the __schedule() preempt argumentThomas Gleixner1-11/+23
PREEMPT_RT needs to hand a special state into __schedule() when a task blocks on a 'sleeping' spin/rwlock. This is required to handle rcu_note_context_switch() correctly without having special casing in the RCU code. From an RCU point of view the blocking on the sleeping spinlock is equivalent to preemption, because the task might be in a read side critical section. schedule_debug() also has a check which would trigger with the !preempt case, but that could be handled differently. To avoid adding another argument and extra checks which cannot be optimized out by the compiler, the following solution has been chosen: - Replace the boolean 'preempt' argument with an unsigned integer 'sched_mode' argument and define constants to hand in: (0 == no preemption, 1 = preemption). - Add two masks to apply on that mode: one for the debug/rcu invocations, and one for the actual scheduling decision. For a non RT kernel these masks are UINT_MAX, i.e. all bits are set, which allows the compiler to optimize the AND operation out, because it is not masking out anything. IOW, it's not different from the boolean. RT enabled kernels will define these masks separately. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17sched/wakeup: Prepare for RT sleeping spin/rwlocksThomas Gleixner1-0/+33
Waiting for spinlocks and rwlocks on non RT enabled kernels is task::state preserving. Any wakeup which matches the state is valid. RT enabled kernels substitutes them with 'sleeping' spinlocks. This creates an issue vs. task::__state. In order to block on the lock, the task has to overwrite task::__state and a consecutive wakeup issued by the unlocker sets the state back to TASK_RUNNING. As a consequence the task loses the state which was set before the lock acquire and also any regular wakeup targeted at the task while it is blocked on the lock. To handle this gracefully, add a 'saved_state' member to task_struct which is used in the following way: 1) When a task blocks on a 'sleeping' spinlock, the current state is saved in task::saved_state before it is set to TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT. 2) When the task unblocks and after acquiring the lock, it restores the saved state. 3) When a regular wakeup happens for a task while it is blocked then the state change of that wakeup is redirected to operate on task::saved_state. This is also required when the task state is running because the task might have been woken up from the lock wait and has not yet restored the saved state. To make it complete, provide the necessary helpers to save and restore the saved state along with the necessary documentation how the RT lock blocking is supposed to work. For non-RT kernels there is no functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17sched/wakeup: Split out the wakeup ->__state checkThomas Gleixner1-6/+18
RT kernels have a slightly more complicated handling of wakeups due to 'sleeping' spin/rwlocks. If a task is blocked on such a lock then the original state of the task is preserved over the blocking period, and any regular (non lock related) wakeup has to be targeted at the saved state to ensure that these wakeups are not lost. Once the task acquires the lock it restores the task state from the saved state. To avoid cluttering try_to_wake_up() with that logic, split the wakeup state check out into an inline helper and use it at both places where task::__state is checked against the state argument of try_to_wake_up(). No functional change. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17locking/rtmutex: Set proper wait context for lockdepThomas Gleixner1-1/+1
RT mutexes belong to the LD_WAIT_SLEEP class. Make them so. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
2021-08-17Merge tag 'v5.14-rc6' into locking/core, to pick up fixesIngo Molnar175-3077/+10370
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
2021-08-17bpf: Add bpf_get_attach_cookie() BPF helper to access bpf_cookie valueAndrii Nakryiko1-1/+34
Add new BPF helper, bpf_get_attach_cookie(), which can be used by BPF programs to get access to a user-provided bpf_cookie value, specified during BPF program attachment (BPF link creation) time. Naming is hard, though. With the concept being named "BPF cookie", I've considered calling the helper: - bpf_get_cookie() -- seems too unspecific and easily mistaken with socket cookie; - bpf_get_bpf_cookie() -- too much tautology; - bpf_get_link_cookie() -- would be ok, but while we create a BPF link to attach BPF program to BPF hook, it's still an "attachment" and the bpf_cookie is associated with BPF program attachment to a hook, not a BPF link itself. Technically, we could support bpf_cookie with old-style cgroup programs.So I ultimately rejected it in favor of bpf_get_attach_cookie(). Currently all perf_event-backed BPF program types support bpf_get_attach_cookie() helper. Follow-up patches will add support for fentry/fexit programs as well. While at it, mark bpf_tracing_func_proto() as static to make it obvious that it's only used from within the kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
2021-08-17bpf: Allow to specify user-provided bpf_cookie for BPF perf linksAndrii Nakryiko4-22/+38
Add ability for users to specify custom u64 value (bpf_cookie) when creating BPF link for perf_event-backed BPF programs (kprobe/uprobe, perf_event, tracepoints). This is useful for cases when the same BPF program is used for attaching and processing invocation of different tracepoints/kprobes/uprobes in a generic fashion, but such that each invocation is distinguished from each other (e.g., BPF program can look up additional information associated with a specific kernel function without having to rely on function IP lookups). This enables new use cases to be implemented simply and efficiently that previously were possible only through code generation (and thus multiple instances of almost identical BPF program) or compilation at runtime (BCC-style) on target hosts (even more expensive resource-wise). For uprobes it is not even possible in some cases to know function IP before hand (e.g., when attaching to shared library without PID filtering, in which case base load address is not known for a library). This is done by storing u64 bpf_cookie in struct bpf_prog_array_item, corresponding to each attached and run BPF program. Given cgroup BPF programs already use two 8-byte pointers for their needs and cgroup BPF programs don't have (yet?) support for bpf_cookie, reuse that space through union of cgroup_storage and new bpf_cookie field. Make it available to kprobe/tracepoint BPF programs through bpf_trace_run_ctx. This is set by BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY, used by kprobe/uprobe/tracepoint BPF program execution code, which luckily is now also split from BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG. This run context will be utilized by a new BPF helper giving access to this user-provided cookie value from inside a BPF program. Generic perf_event BPF programs will access this value from perf_event itself through passed in BPF program context. Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
Powered by cgit, Gruvboxed by Blaster4385.