RE: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page_bit

["Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>]

.
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-
> foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Simplify, simplify, simplify.
> 
> I've now tried three different approaches (I stopped sending broken patches
> after deciding the first one was unfixable), and they all suck.
> 
> I was hoping for something lockless to avoid the whole issue with latency
> over the long list, but anything that has the wait queue entry allocated on the
> stack needs to synchronize the wakeup due to the stack usage, so once you
> have lists that are thousands of entries, either you hold the lock for long
> times (normal wait queues) or take and release them constantly (the swait
> approach), or you batch things up (Tim's wait-queue patches).
> 
> Of those three approaches, the batching does seem to be the best of the lot.
> Allocating non-stack wait entries while waiting for pages seems like a bad
> idea. We're probably waiting for IO in normal circumstances, possibly
> because we're low on memory.
> 
> So I *am* ok with the batching (your patch #1), but I'm *not* ok with the
> nasty horrible book-keeping to avoid new entries when you batch and
> release the lock and that allows new entries on the list (your patch #2).
> 
> That said, I have now stared *way* too much at the page wait code after
> having unsuccessfully tried to replace that wait-queue with other "clever"
> approaches (all of which ended up being crap).
> 
> And I'm starting to see a possible solution, or at least improvement.
> 
> Let's just assume I take the batching patch. It's not conceptually ugly, it's
> fairly simple, and there are lots of independent arguments for it (ie latency,
> but also possible performance from better parallelism).
> 
> That patch doesn't make any data structures bigger or more complicated, it's
> just that single "is this a bookmark entry" thing.
> So that patch just looks fundamentally fine to me, and the only real
> argument I ever had against it was that I would really really _really_ have
> wanted to root-cause the behavior.
> 
> So that leaves my fundamental dislike of your other patch.
> 
> And it turns out that all my looking at the page wait code wasn't entirely
> unproductive. Yes, I went through three crap approaches before I gave up on
> rewriting it, but in the meantime I did get way too intimate with looking at
> that pile of crud.
> 
> And I think I found the reason why you needed that patch #2 in the first place.
> 
> Here's what is going on:
> 
>  - we're going to assume that the problem is all with a single page, not due to
> hash collisions (as per your earlier reports)
> 
>  - we also know that the only bit that matters is the PG_locked bit
> 
>  - that means that the only way to get that "multiple concurrent waker"
> situation that your patch #2 tries to handle better is because you have
> multiple people unlocking the page - since that is what causes the wakeups
> 
>  - that in turn means that you obviously had multiple threads *locking* it too.
> 
>  - and that means that among those new entries there are lockers coming in
> in the middle and adding an exclusive entry.
> 
>  - the exclusive entry already stops the wakeup list walking
> 
>  - but we add non-exclusive entries TO THE BEGINNING of the page waiters
> list
> 
> And I really think that last thing is fundamentally wrong.
> 
> It's wrong for several reasons:
> 
>  - because it's unfair: threads that want to lock get put behind threads that
> just want to see the unlocked state.
> 
>  - because it's stupid: our non-locking waiters will end up waiting again if the
> page got locked, so waking up a locker *and* a lot of non-locking waiters will
> just cause them to go back to sleep anyway
> 
>  - because it causes us to walk longer lists: we stop walking when we wake up
> the exclusive waiter, but because we always put the non-exclusive waiters in
> there first, we always walk the long list of non-exclusive waiters even if we
> could just stop walking because we woke up an exclusive one.
> 
> Now the reason we do this seems to be entirely random: for a *normal* wait
> queue, you really want to always wake up all the non-exclusive waiters,
> because exclusive waiters are only exclusive wrt each other.
> 
> But for a page lock, an exclusive waiter really is getting the lock, and the
> other waiters are going to wait for the lock to clear anyway, so the page wait
> thing is actually almost exactly the reverse situation. We *could* put
> exclusive waiters at the beginning of the list instead, and actively try to avoid
> walking the list at all if we have pending lockers.
> 
> I'm not doing that, because I think the fair thing to do is to just do things in
> the order they came in. Plus the code is actually simpler if we just always add
> to the tail.
> 
> Now, the other thing to look at is how the wakeup function works. It checks
> the aliasing information (page and bit number), but then it
> *also* does:
> 
>         if (test_bit(key->bit_nr, &key->page->flags))
>                 return 0;
> 
> basically saying "continue walking if somebody else already got the bit".
> 
> That's *INSANE*. It's exactly the wrong thing to do. It's basically saying "even
> if we had an exclusive waiter, let's not wake it up, but do let us continue to
> walk the list even though the bit we're waiting for to clear is set already".
> 
> What would be sane is to say "stop walking the list now".. So just do that - by
> making "negative return from wake function" mean "stop walking".
> 
> So how about just this fairly trivial patch?

I tried this patch and https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/27/222 together.
But they don't fix the issue. I can still get the similar call stack.

Thanks,
Kan

> 
> In fact, I think this may help even *without* Tim's patch #1. So I think this
> would be lovely to test on that problem load on its own, and seeing if it
> makes the wait queues behave better.
> 
> It might not cut down on the total length of the wait-queue, but it should
> hopefully cause it to walk it much less. We now hit the exclusive waiters
> earlier and stop waking things up when we have a new locker thread pending.
> And when the page ends up being locked again, we stop walking the list
> entirely, so no unnecessarily traversal.
> 
> This patch is small and at least minimally works (I'm running it right now).
> 
>                                Linus