path: root/kernel/semaphore.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2008-08-05semaphore: __down_common: use signal_pending_state()Oleg Nesterov
Change __down_common() to use signal_pending_state() instead of open coding. The changes in kernel/semaphore.o are just artifacts, the state checks are optimized away. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-01mmiotrace broken in linux-next (8-bit writes only)Pekka Paalanen
The moment mmiotrace is enabled, I hit a NULL deref in: IP: [<ffffffff80256e71>] __trace_special+0x17c/0x23a Call Trace: [<ffffffff802573cc>] ftrace_special+0x6f/0x9a [<ffffffff8023e3e4>] down+0x19/0x4a [<ffffffff80228adc>] acquire_console_sem+0x42/0x58 [<ffffffff8035d273>] con_flush_chars+0x28/0x43 [<ffffffff80354a70>] write_chan+0x22e/0x334 [<ffffffff802244e9>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0xf [<ffffffff8035236d>] tty_write+0x195/0x228 [<ffffffff80354842>] ? write_chan+0x0/0x334 [<ffffffff8027c23a>] vfs_write+0xae/0x137 [<ffffffff8027c6e3>] sys_write+0x47/0x70 [<ffffffff8020b1db>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80 which means 'entry' in __trace_special() is NULL. [ mingo@elte.hu: that ftrace_special() was a leftover. ] Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pq@iki.fi> Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com> Cc: proski@gnu.org Cc: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-05-23ftrace: stacktrace fixIngo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
2008-05-10Revert "semaphore: fix"Linus Torvalds
This reverts commit bf726eab3711cf192405d21688a4b21e07b6188a, as it has been reported to cause a regression with processes stuck in __down(), apparently because some missing wakeup. Quoth Sven Wegener: "I'm currently investigating a regression that has showed up with my last git pull yesterday. Bisecting the commits showed bf726e "semaphore: fix" to be the culprit, reverting it fixed the issue. Symptoms: During heavy filesystem usage (e.g. a kernel compile) I get several compiler processes in uninterruptible sleep, blocking all i/o on the filesystem. System is an Intel Core 2 Quad running a 64bit kernel and userspace. Filesystem is xfs on top of lvm. See below for the output of sysrq-w." See http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/10/45 for full report. In the meantime, we can just fix the BKL performance regression by reverting back to the good old BKL spinlock implementation instead, since any sleeping lock will generally perform badly, especially if it tries to be fair. Reported-by: Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@stealer.net> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2008-05-08semaphore: fixIngo Molnar
Yanmin Zhang reported: | Comparing with kernel 2.6.25, AIM7 (use tmpfs) has more th | regression under 2.6.26-rc1 on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, | and Itanium Montecito. Bisect located the patch below: | | 64ac24e738823161693bf791f87adc802cf529ff is first bad commit | commit 64ac24e738823161693bf791f87adc802cf529ff | Author: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> | Date: Fri Mar 7 21:55:58 2008 -0500 | | Generic semaphore implementation | | After I manually reverted the patch against 2.6.26-rc1 while fixing | lots of conflicts/errors, aim7 regression became less than 2%. i reproduced the AIM7 workload and can confirm Yanmin's findings that -.26-rc1 regresses over .25 - by over 67% here. Looking at the workload i found and fixed what i believe to be the real bug causing the AIM7 regression: it was inefficient wakeup / scheduling / locking behavior of the new generic semaphore code, causing suboptimal performance. The problem comes from the following code. The new semaphore code does this on down(): spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); if (likely(sem->count > 0)) sem->count--; else __down(sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); and this on up(): spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); if (likely(list_empty(&sem->wait_list))) sem->count++; else __up(sem); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); where __up() does: list_del(&waiter->list); waiter->up = 1; wake_up_process(waiter->task); and where __down() does this in essence: list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list); waiter.task = task; waiter.up = 0; for (;;) { [...] spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock); timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout); spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock); if (waiter.up) return 0; } the fastpath looks good and obvious, but note the following property of the contended path: if there's a task on the ->wait_list, the up() of the current owner will "pass over" ownership to that waiting task, in a wake-one manner, via the waiter->up flag and by removing the waiter from the wait list. That is all and fine in principle, but as implemented in kernel/semaphore.c it also creates a nasty, hidden source of contention! The contention comes from the following property of the new semaphore code: the new owner owns the semaphore exclusively, even if it is not running yet. So if the old owner, even if just a few instructions later, does a down() [lock_kernel()] again, it will be blocked and will have to wait on the new owner to eventually be scheduled (possibly on another CPU)! Or if another task gets to lock_kernel() sooner than the "new owner" scheduled, it will be blocked unnecessarily and for a very long time when there are 2000 tasks running. I.e. the implementation of the new semaphores code does wake-one and lock ownership in a very restrictive way - it does not allow opportunistic re-locking of the lock at all and keeps the scheduler from picking task order intelligently. This kind of scheduling, with 2000 AIM7 processes running, creates awful cross-scheduling between those 2000 tasks, causes reduced parallelism, a throttled runqueue length and a lot of idle time. With increasing number of CPUs it causes an exponentially worse behavior in AIM7, as the chance for a newly woken new-owner task to actually run anytime soon is less and less likely. Note that it takes just a tiny bit of contention for the 'new-semaphore catastrophy' to happen: the wakeup latencies get added to whatever small contention there is, and quickly snowball out of control! I believe Yanmin's findings and numbers support this analysis too. The best fix for this problem is to use the same scheduling logic that the kernel/mutex.c code uses: keep the wake-one behavior (that is OK and wanted because we do not want to over-schedule), but also allow opportunistic locking of the lock even if a wakee is already "in flight". The patch below implements this new logic. With this patch applied the AIM7 regression is largely fixed on my quad testbox: # v2.6.25 vanilla: .................. Tasks Jobs/Min JTI Real CPU Jobs/sec/task 2000 56096.4 91 207.5 789.7 0.4675 2000 55894.4 94 208.2 792.7 0.4658 # v2.6.26-rc1-166-gc0a1811 vanilla: ................................... Tasks Jobs/Min JTI Real CPU Jobs/sec/task 2000 33230.6 83 350.3 784.5 0.2769 2000 31778.1 86 366.3 783.6 0.2648 # v2.6.26-rc1-166-gc0a1811 + semaphore-speedup: ............................................... Tasks Jobs/Min JTI Real CPU Jobs/sec/task 2000 55707.1 92 209.0 795.6 0.4642 2000 55704.4 96 209.0 796.0 0.4642 i.e. a 67% speedup. We are now back to within 1% of the v2.6.25 performance levels and have zero idle time during the test, as expected. Btw., interactivity also improved dramatically with the fix - for example console-switching became almost instantaneous during this workload (which after all is running 2000 tasks at once!), without the patch it was stuck for a minute at times. There's another nice side-effect of this speedup patch, the new generic semaphore code got even smaller: text data bss dec hex filename 1241 0 0 1241 4d9 semaphore.o.before 1207 0 0 1207 4b7 semaphore.o.after (because the waiter.up complication got removed.) Longer-term we should look into using the mutex code for the generic semaphore code as well - but i's not easy due to legacies and it's outside of the scope of v2.6.26 and outside the scope of this patch as well. Bisected-by: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-04-17Improve semaphore documentationMatthew Wilcox
Move documentation from semaphore.h to semaphore.c as requested by Andrew Morton. Also reformat to kernel-doc style and add some more notes about the implementation. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
2008-04-17Simplify semaphore implementationMatthew Wilcox
By removing the negative values of 'count' and relying on the wait_list to indicate whether we have any waiters, we can simplify the implementation by removing the protection against an unlikely race condition. Thanks to David Howells for his suggestions. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
2008-04-17Add down_timeout and change ACPI to use itMatthew Wilcox
ACPI currently emulates a timeout for semaphores with calls to down_trylock and sleep. This produces horrible behaviour in terms of fairness and excessive wakeups. Now that we have a unified semaphore implementation, adding a real down_trylock is almost trivial. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
2008-04-17Introduce down_killable()Matthew Wilcox
down_killable() is the functional counterpart of mutex_lock_killable. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
2008-04-17Generic semaphore implementationMatthew Wilcox
Semaphores are no longer performance-critical, so a generic C implementation is better for maintainability, debuggability and extensibility. Thanks to Peter Zijlstra for fixing the lockdep warning. Thanks to Harvey Harrison for pointing out that the unlikely() was unnecessary. Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>