[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v5 12/13] xen/rwlock: raise the number of possible cpus


  • To: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:39:18 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:39:27 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 14.03.2024 08:20, Juergen Gross wrote:
> The rwlock handling is limiting the number of cpus to 4095 today. The
> main reason is the use of the atomic_t data type for the main lock
> handling, which needs 2 bits for the locking state (writer waiting or
> write locked), 12 bits for the id of a possible writer, and a 12 bit
> counter for readers. The limit isn't 4096 due to an off by one sanity
> check.
> 
> The atomic_t data type is 32 bits wide, so in theory 15 bits for the
> writer's cpu id and 15 bits for the reader count seem to be fine, but
> via read_trylock() more readers than cpus are possible.

As a result, afaict you choose to use just 14 bits for the CPU, but
still 15 bits (with the 16th to deal with overflow) for the reader count.
That could do with making explicit here, as a question is whether we
deem as sufficient that there is just one extra bit for the reader
count.

> --- a/xen/include/xen/rwlock.h
> +++ b/xen/include/xen/rwlock.h
> @@ -23,12 +23,12 @@ typedef struct {
>  #define rwlock_init(l) (*(l) = (rwlock_t)RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED)
>  
>  /* Writer states & reader shift and bias. */
> -#define    _QW_CPUMASK  0xfffU             /* Writer CPU mask */
> -#define    _QW_SHIFT    12                 /* Writer flags shift */
> -#define    _QW_WAITING  (1U << _QW_SHIFT)  /* A writer is waiting */
> -#define    _QW_LOCKED   (3U << _QW_SHIFT)  /* A writer holds the lock */
> -#define    _QW_WMASK    (3U << _QW_SHIFT)  /* Writer mask */
> -#define    _QR_SHIFT    14                 /* Reader count shift */
> +#define    _QW_SHIFT    14                      /* Writer flags shift */
> +#define    _QW_CPUMASK  ((1U << _QW_SHIFT) - 1) /* Writer CPU mask */
> +#define    _QW_WAITING  (1U << _QW_SHIFT)       /* A writer is waiting */
> +#define    _QW_LOCKED   (3U << _QW_SHIFT)       /* A writer holds the lock */
> +#define    _QW_WMASK    (3U << _QW_SHIFT)       /* Writer mask */
> +#define    _QR_SHIFT    (_QW_SHIFT + 2)         /* Reader count shift */
>  #define    _QR_BIAS     (1U << _QR_SHIFT)

Btw, seeing all the uppercase U suffixes here, I think you had some
lowercase ones earlier in the series. While Misra doesn't demand
uppercase for U, it does for L and iirc we decided to use all
uppercase suffixes as a result. Would be nice if what goes in could
have this correct right away.

> @@ -36,14 +36,16 @@ void queue_write_lock_slowpath(rwlock_t *lock);
>  
>  static inline bool _is_write_locked_by_me(unsigned int cnts)
>  {
> -    BUILD_BUG_ON(_QW_CPUMASK < NR_CPUS);
> +    BUILD_BUG_ON((_QW_CPUMASK + 1) < NR_CPUS);
> +    BUILD_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS * _QR_BIAS > INT_MAX);
>      return (cnts & _QW_WMASK) == _QW_LOCKED &&
>             (cnts & _QW_CPUMASK) == smp_processor_id();
>  }
>  
>  static inline bool _can_read_lock(unsigned int cnts)
>  {
> -    return !(cnts & _QW_WMASK) || _is_write_locked_by_me(cnts);
> +    return cnts <= INT_MAX &&
> +           (!(cnts & _QW_WMASK) || _is_write_locked_by_me(cnts));
>  }

I view this as problematic: Code knowing that a write lock is being held
may invoke a function using read_trylock() and expect the lock to be
available there.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.