diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 1448 |
1 files changed, 1448 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..519673df0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -0,0 +1,1448 @@ +.. _kernel_hacking_lock: + +=========================== +Unreliable Guide To Locking +=========================== + +:Author: Rusty Russell + +Introduction +============ + +Welcome, to Rusty's Remarkably Unreliable Guide to Kernel Locking +issues. This document describes the locking systems in the Linux Kernel +in 2.6. + +With the wide availability of HyperThreading, and preemption in the +Linux Kernel, everyone hacking on the kernel needs to know the +fundamentals of concurrency and locking for SMP. + +The Problem With Concurrency +============================ + +(Skip this if you know what a Race Condition is). + +In a normal program, you can increment a counter like so: + +:: + + very_important_count++; + + +This is what they would expect to happen: + + +.. table:: Expected Results + + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | Instance 1 | Instance 2 | + +====================================+====================================+ + | read very_important_count (5) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | add 1 (6) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | write very_important_count (6) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | read very_important_count (6) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | add 1 (7) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | write very_important_count (7) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + +This is what might happen: + +.. table:: Possible Results + + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | Instance 1 | Instance 2 | + +====================================+====================================+ + | read very_important_count (5) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | read very_important_count (5) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | add 1 (6) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | add 1 (6) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | write very_important_count (6) | | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + | | write very_important_count (6) | + +------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ + + +Race Conditions and Critical Regions +------------------------------------ + +This overlap, where the result depends on the relative timing of +multiple tasks, is called a race condition. The piece of code containing +the concurrency issue is called a critical region. And especially since +Linux starting running on SMP machines, they became one of the major +issues in kernel design and implementation. + +Preemption can have the same effect, even if there is only one CPU: by +preempting one task during the critical region, we have exactly the same +race condition. In this case the thread which preempts might run the +critical region itself. + +The solution is to recognize when these simultaneous accesses occur, and +use locks to make sure that only one instance can enter the critical +region at any time. There are many friendly primitives in the Linux +kernel to help you do this. And then there are the unfriendly +primitives, but I'll pretend they don't exist. + +Locking in the Linux Kernel +=========================== + +If I could give you one piece of advice: never sleep with anyone crazier +than yourself. But if I had to give you advice on locking: **keep it +simple**. + +Be reluctant to introduce new locks. + +Strangely enough, this last one is the exact reverse of my advice when +you **have** slept with someone crazier than yourself. And you should +think about getting a big dog. + +Two Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks and Mutexes +----------------------------------------------------- + +There are two main types of kernel locks. The fundamental type is the +spinlock (``include/asm/spinlock.h``), which is a very simple +single-holder lock: if you can't get the spinlock, you keep trying +(spinning) until you can. Spinlocks are very small and fast, and can be +used anywhere. + +The second type is a mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``): it is like a +spinlock, but you may block holding a mutex. If you can't lock a mutex, +your task will suspend itself, and be woken up when the mutex is +released. This means the CPU can do something else while you are +waiting. There are many cases when you simply can't sleep (see +`What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts? <#sleeping-things>`__), +and so have to use a spinlock instead. + +Neither type of lock is recursive: see +`Deadlock: Simple and Advanced <#deadlock>`__. + +Locks and Uniprocessor Kernels +------------------------------ + +For kernels compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, and without +``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` spinlocks do not exist at all. This is an excellent +design decision: when no-one else can run at the same time, there is no +reason to have a lock. + +If the kernel is compiled without ``CONFIG_SMP``, but ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` +is set, then spinlocks simply disable preemption, which is sufficient to +prevent any races. For most purposes, we can think of preemption as +equivalent to SMP, and not worry about it separately. + +You should always test your locking code with ``CONFIG_SMP`` and +``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` enabled, even if you don't have an SMP test box, +because it will still catch some kinds of locking bugs. + +Mutexes still exist, because they are required for synchronization +between user contexts, as we will see below. + +Locking Only In User Context +---------------------------- + +If you have a data structure which is only ever accessed from user +context, then you can use a simple mutex (``include/linux/mutex.h``) to +protect it. This is the most trivial case: you initialize the mutex. +Then you can call :c:func:`mutex_lock_interruptible()` to grab the +mutex, and :c:func:`mutex_unlock()` to release it. There is also a +:c:func:`mutex_lock()`, which should be avoided, because it will +not return if a signal is received. + +Example: ``net/netfilter/nf_sockopt.c`` allows registration of new +:c:func:`setsockopt()` and :c:func:`getsockopt()` calls, with +:c:func:`nf_register_sockopt()`. Registration and de-registration +are only done on module load and unload (and boot time, where there is +no concurrency), and the list of registrations is only consulted for an +unknown :c:func:`setsockopt()` or :c:func:`getsockopt()` system +call. The ``nf_sockopt_mutex`` is perfect to protect this, especially +since the setsockopt and getsockopt calls may well sleep. + +Locking Between User Context and Softirqs +----------------------------------------- + +If a softirq shares data with user context, you have two problems. +Firstly, the current user context can be interrupted by a softirq, and +secondly, the critical region could be entered from another CPU. This is +where :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()` (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is +used. It disables softirqs on that CPU, then grabs the lock. +:c:func:`spin_unlock_bh()` does the reverse. (The '_bh' suffix is +a historical reference to "Bottom Halves", the old name for software +interrupts. It should really be called spin_lock_softirq()' in a +perfect world). + +Note that you can also use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` or +:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` here, which stop hardware interrupts +as well: see `Hard IRQ Context <#hard-irq-context>`__. + +This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this +macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_bh_disable()` +(``include/linux/interrupt.h``), which protects you from the softirq +being run. + +Locking Between User Context and Tasklets +----------------------------------------- + +This is exactly the same as above, because tasklets are actually run +from a softirq. + +Locking Between User Context and Timers +--------------------------------------- + +This, too, is exactly the same as above, because timers are actually run +from a softirq. From a locking point of view, tasklets and timers are +identical. + +Locking Between Tasklets/Timers +------------------------------- + +Sometimes a tasklet or timer might want to share data with another +tasklet or timer. + +The Same Tasklet/Timer +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Since a tasklet is never run on two CPUs at once, you don't need to +worry about your tasklet being reentrant (running twice at once), even +on SMP. + +Different Tasklets/Timers +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +If another tasklet/timer wants to share data with your tasklet or timer +, you will both need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and +:c:func:`spin_unlock()` calls. :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()` is +unnecessary here, as you are already in a tasklet, and none will be run +on the same CPU. + +Locking Between Softirqs +------------------------ + +Often a softirq might want to share data with itself or a tasklet/timer. + +The Same Softirq +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +The same softirq can run on the other CPUs: you can use a per-CPU array +(see `Per-CPU Data <#per-cpu-data>`__) for better performance. If you're +going so far as to use a softirq, you probably care about scalable +performance enough to justify the extra complexity. + +You'll need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and +:c:func:`spin_unlock()` for shared data. + +Different Softirqs +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +You'll need to use :c:func:`spin_lock()` and +:c:func:`spin_unlock()` for shared data, whether it be a timer, +tasklet, different softirq or the same or another softirq: any of them +could be running on a different CPU. + +Hard IRQ Context +================ + +Hardware interrupts usually communicate with a tasklet or softirq. +Frequently this involves putting work in a queue, which the softirq will +take out. + +Locking Between Hard IRQ and Softirqs/Tasklets +---------------------------------------------- + +If a hardware irq handler shares data with a softirq, you have two +concerns. Firstly, the softirq processing can be interrupted by a +hardware interrupt, and secondly, the critical region could be entered +by a hardware interrupt on another CPU. This is where +:c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` is used. It is defined to disable +interrupts on that cpu, then grab the lock. +:c:func:`spin_unlock_irq()` does the reverse. + +The irq handler does not to use :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()`, because +the softirq cannot run while the irq handler is running: it can use +:c:func:`spin_lock()`, which is slightly faster. The only exception +would be if a different hardware irq handler uses the same lock: +:c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` will stop that from interrupting us. + +This works perfectly for UP as well: the spin lock vanishes, and this +macro simply becomes :c:func:`local_irq_disable()` +(``include/asm/smp.h``), which protects you from the softirq/tasklet/BH +being run. + +:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` (``include/linux/spinlock.h``) is a +variant which saves whether interrupts were on or off in a flags word, +which is passed to :c:func:`spin_unlock_irqrestore()`. This means +that the same code can be used inside an hard irq handler (where +interrupts are already off) and in softirqs (where the irq disabling is +required). + +Note that softirqs (and hence tasklets and timers) are run on return +from hardware interrupts, so :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` also stops +these. In that sense, :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` is the most +general and powerful locking function. + +Locking Between Two Hard IRQ Handlers +------------------------------------- + +It is rare to have to share data between two IRQ handlers, but if you +do, :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` should be used: it is +architecture-specific whether all interrupts are disabled inside irq +handlers themselves. + +Cheat Sheet For Locking +======================= + +Pete Zaitcev gives the following summary: + +- If you are in a process context (any syscall) and want to lock other + process out, use a mutex. You can take a mutex and sleep + (``copy_from_user*(`` or ``kmalloc(x,GFP_KERNEL)``). + +- Otherwise (== data can be touched in an interrupt), use + :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` and + :c:func:`spin_unlock_irqrestore()`. + +- Avoid holding spinlock for more than 5 lines of code and across any + function call (except accessors like :c:func:`readb()`). + +Table of Minimum Requirements +----------------------------- + +The following table lists the **minimum** locking requirements between +various contexts. In some cases, the same context can only be running on +one CPU at a time, so no locking is required for that context (eg. a +particular thread can only run on one CPU at a time, but if it needs +shares data with another thread, locking is required). + +Remember the advice above: you can always use +:c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()`, which is a superset of all other +spinlock primitives. + +============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ============== +. IRQ Handler A IRQ Handler B Softirq A Softirq B Tasklet A Tasklet B Timer A Timer B User Context A User Context B +============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ============== +IRQ Handler A None +IRQ Handler B SLIS None +Softirq A SLI SLI SL +Softirq B SLI SLI SL SL +Tasklet A SLI SLI SL SL None +Tasklet B SLI SLI SL SL SL None +Timer A SLI SLI SL SL SL SL None +Timer B SLI SLI SL SL SL SL SL None +User Context A SLI SLI SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH None +User Context B SLI SLI SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH SLBH MLI None +============== ============= ============= ========= ========= ========= ========= ======= ======= ============== ============== + +Table: Table of Locking Requirements + ++--------+----------------------------+ +| SLIS | spin_lock_irqsave | ++--------+----------------------------+ +| SLI | spin_lock_irq | ++--------+----------------------------+ +| SL | spin_lock | ++--------+----------------------------+ +| SLBH | spin_lock_bh | ++--------+----------------------------+ +| MLI | mutex_lock_interruptible | ++--------+----------------------------+ + +Table: Legend for Locking Requirements Table + +The trylock Functions +===================== + +There are functions that try to acquire a lock only once and immediately +return a value telling about success or failure to acquire the lock. +They can be used if you need no access to the data protected with the +lock when some other thread is holding the lock. You should acquire the +lock later if you then need access to the data protected with the lock. + +:c:func:`spin_trylock()` does not spin but returns non-zero if it +acquires the spinlock on the first try or 0 if not. This function can be +used in all contexts like :c:func:`spin_lock()`: you must have +disabled the contexts that might interrupt you and acquire the spin +lock. + +:c:func:`mutex_trylock()` does not suspend your task but returns +non-zero if it could lock the mutex on the first try or 0 if not. This +function cannot be safely used in hardware or software interrupt +contexts despite not sleeping. + +Common Examples +=============== + +Let's step through a simple example: a cache of number to name mappings. +The cache keeps a count of how often each of the objects is used, and +when it gets full, throws out the least used one. + +All In User Context +------------------- + +For our first example, we assume that all operations are in user context +(ie. from system calls), so we can sleep. This means we can use a mutex +to protect the cache and all the objects within it. Here's the code:: + + #include <linux/list.h> + #include <linux/slab.h> + #include <linux/string.h> + #include <linux/mutex.h> + #include <asm/errno.h> + + struct object + { + struct list_head list; + int id; + char name[32]; + int popularity; + }; + + /* Protects the cache, cache_num, and the objects within it */ + static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock); + static LIST_HEAD(cache); + static unsigned int cache_num = 0; + #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10 + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static struct object *__cache_find(int id) + { + struct object *i; + + list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) + if (i->id == id) { + i->popularity++; + return i; + } + return NULL; + } + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj) + { + BUG_ON(!obj); + list_del(&obj->list); + kfree(obj); + cache_num--; + } + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static void __cache_add(struct object *obj) + { + list_add(&obj->list, &cache); + if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) { + struct object *i, *outcast = NULL; + list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) { + if (!outcast || i->popularity < outcast->popularity) + outcast = i; + } + __cache_delete(outcast); + } + } + + int cache_add(int id, const char *name) + { + struct object *obj; + + if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL) + return -ENOMEM; + + strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name)); + obj->id = id; + obj->popularity = 0; + + mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + __cache_add(obj); + mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + return 0; + } + + void cache_delete(int id) + { + mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + __cache_delete(__cache_find(id)); + mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + } + + int cache_find(int id, char *name) + { + struct object *obj; + int ret = -ENOENT; + + mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + obj = __cache_find(id); + if (obj) { + ret = 0; + strcpy(name, obj->name); + } + mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + return ret; + } + +Note that we always make sure we have the cache_lock when we add, +delete, or look up the cache: both the cache infrastructure itself and +the contents of the objects are protected by the lock. In this case it's +easy, since we copy the data for the user, and never let them access the +objects directly. + +There is a slight (and common) optimization here: in +:c:func:`cache_add()` we set up the fields of the object before +grabbing the lock. This is safe, as no-one else can access it until we +put it in cache. + +Accessing From Interrupt Context +-------------------------------- + +Now consider the case where :c:func:`cache_find()` can be called +from interrupt context: either a hardware interrupt or a softirq. An +example would be a timer which deletes object from the cache. + +The change is shown below, in standard patch format: the ``-`` are lines +which are taken away, and the ``+`` are lines which are added. + +:: + + --- cache.c.usercontext 2003-12-09 13:58:54.000000000 +1100 + +++ cache.c.interrupt 2003-12-09 14:07:49.000000000 +1100 + @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ + int popularity; + }; + + -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cache_lock); + +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock); + static LIST_HEAD(cache); + static unsigned int cache_num = 0; + #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10 + @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ + int cache_add(int id, const char *name) + { + struct object *obj; + + unsigned long flags; + + if ((obj = kmalloc(sizeof(*obj), GFP_KERNEL)) == NULL) + return -ENOMEM; + @@ -63,30 +64,33 @@ + obj->id = id; + obj->popularity = 0; + + - mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + __cache_add(obj); + - mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + return 0; + } + + void cache_delete(int id) + { + - mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + + unsigned long flags; + + + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + __cache_delete(__cache_find(id)); + - mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + } + + int cache_find(int id, char *name) + { + struct object *obj; + int ret = -ENOENT; + + unsigned long flags; + + - mutex_lock(&cache_lock); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + obj = __cache_find(id); + if (obj) { + ret = 0; + strcpy(name, obj->name); + } + - mutex_unlock(&cache_lock); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + return ret; + } + +Note that the :c:func:`spin_lock_irqsave()` will turn off +interrupts if they are on, otherwise does nothing (if we are already in +an interrupt handler), hence these functions are safe to call from any +context. + +Unfortunately, :c:func:`cache_add()` calls :c:func:`kmalloc()` +with the ``GFP_KERNEL`` flag, which is only legal in user context. I +have assumed that :c:func:`cache_add()` is still only called in +user context, otherwise this should become a parameter to +:c:func:`cache_add()`. + +Exposing Objects Outside This File +---------------------------------- + +If our objects contained more information, it might not be sufficient to +copy the information in and out: other parts of the code might want to +keep pointers to these objects, for example, rather than looking up the +id every time. This produces two problems. + +The first problem is that we use the ``cache_lock`` to protect objects: +we'd need to make this non-static so the rest of the code can use it. +This makes locking trickier, as it is no longer all in one place. + +The second problem is the lifetime problem: if another structure keeps a +pointer to an object, it presumably expects that pointer to remain +valid. Unfortunately, this is only guaranteed while you hold the lock, +otherwise someone might call :c:func:`cache_delete()` and even +worse, add another object, re-using the same address. + +As there is only one lock, you can't hold it forever: no-one else would +get any work done. + +The solution to this problem is to use a reference count: everyone who +has a pointer to the object increases it when they first get the object, +and drops the reference count when they're finished with it. Whoever +drops it to zero knows it is unused, and can actually delete it. + +Here is the code:: + + --- cache.c.interrupt 2003-12-09 14:25:43.000000000 +1100 + +++ cache.c.refcnt 2003-12-09 14:33:05.000000000 +1100 + @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ + struct object + { + struct list_head list; + + unsigned int refcnt; + int id; + char name[32]; + int popularity; + @@ -17,6 +18,35 @@ + static unsigned int cache_num = 0; + #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10 + + +static void __object_put(struct object *obj) + +{ + + if (--obj->refcnt == 0) + + kfree(obj); + +} + + + +static void __object_get(struct object *obj) + +{ + + obj->refcnt++; + +} + + + +void object_put(struct object *obj) + +{ + + unsigned long flags; + + + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + + __object_put(obj); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + +} + + + +void object_get(struct object *obj) + +{ + + unsigned long flags; + + + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + + __object_get(obj); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + +} + + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static struct object *__cache_find(int id) + { + @@ -35,6 +65,7 @@ + { + BUG_ON(!obj); + list_del(&obj->list); + + __object_put(obj); + cache_num--; + } + + @@ -63,6 +94,7 @@ + strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name)); + obj->id = id; + obj->popularity = 0; + + obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */ + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + __cache_add(obj); + @@ -79,18 +111,15 @@ + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + } + + -int cache_find(int id, char *name) + +struct object *cache_find(int id) + { + struct object *obj; + - int ret = -ENOENT; + unsigned long flags; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + obj = __cache_find(id); + - if (obj) { + - ret = 0; + - strcpy(name, obj->name); + - } + + if (obj) + + __object_get(obj); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + - return ret; + + return obj; + } + +We encapsulate the reference counting in the standard 'get' and 'put' +functions. Now we can return the object itself from +:c:func:`cache_find()` which has the advantage that the user can +now sleep holding the object (eg. to :c:func:`copy_to_user()` to +name to userspace). + +The other point to note is that I said a reference should be held for +every pointer to the object: thus the reference count is 1 when first +inserted into the cache. In some versions the framework does not hold a +reference count, but they are more complicated. + +Using Atomic Operations For The Reference Count +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +In practice, :c:type:`atomic_t` would usually be used for refcnt. There are a +number of atomic operations defined in ``include/asm/atomic.h``: these +are guaranteed to be seen atomically from all CPUs in the system, so no +lock is required. In this case, it is simpler than using spinlocks, +although for anything non-trivial using spinlocks is clearer. The +:c:func:`atomic_inc()` and :c:func:`atomic_dec_and_test()` +are used instead of the standard increment and decrement operators, and +the lock is no longer used to protect the reference count itself. + +:: + + --- cache.c.refcnt 2003-12-09 15:00:35.000000000 +1100 + +++ cache.c.refcnt-atomic 2003-12-11 15:49:42.000000000 +1100 + @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ + struct object + { + struct list_head list; + - unsigned int refcnt; + + atomic_t refcnt; + int id; + char name[32]; + int popularity; + @@ -18,33 +18,15 @@ + static unsigned int cache_num = 0; + #define MAX_CACHE_SIZE 10 + + -static void __object_put(struct object *obj) + -{ + - if (--obj->refcnt == 0) + - kfree(obj); + -} + - + -static void __object_get(struct object *obj) + -{ + - obj->refcnt++; + -} + - + void object_put(struct object *obj) + { + - unsigned long flags; + - + - spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + - __object_put(obj); + - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcnt)) + + kfree(obj); + } + + void object_get(struct object *obj) + { + - unsigned long flags; + - + - spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + - __object_get(obj); + - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + + atomic_inc(&obj->refcnt); + } + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + @@ -65,7 +47,7 @@ + { + BUG_ON(!obj); + list_del(&obj->list); + - __object_put(obj); + + object_put(obj); + cache_num--; + } + + @@ -94,7 +76,7 @@ + strlcpy(obj->name, name, sizeof(obj->name)); + obj->id = id; + obj->popularity = 0; + - obj->refcnt = 1; /* The cache holds a reference */ + + atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */ + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + __cache_add(obj); + @@ -119,7 +101,7 @@ + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + obj = __cache_find(id); + if (obj) + - __object_get(obj); + + object_get(obj); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + return obj; + } + +Protecting The Objects Themselves +--------------------------------- + +In these examples, we assumed that the objects (except the reference +counts) never changed once they are created. If we wanted to allow the +name to change, there are three possibilities: + +- You can make ``cache_lock`` non-static, and tell people to grab that + lock before changing the name in any object. + +- You can provide a :c:func:`cache_obj_rename()` which grabs this + lock and changes the name for the caller, and tell everyone to use + that function. + +- You can make the ``cache_lock`` protect only the cache itself, and + use another lock to protect the name. + +Theoretically, you can make the locks as fine-grained as one lock for +every field, for every object. In practice, the most common variants +are: + +- One lock which protects the infrastructure (the ``cache`` list in + this example) and all the objects. This is what we have done so far. + +- One lock which protects the infrastructure (including the list + pointers inside the objects), and one lock inside the object which + protects the rest of that object. + +- Multiple locks to protect the infrastructure (eg. one lock per hash + chain), possibly with a separate per-object lock. + +Here is the "lock-per-object" implementation: + +:: + + --- cache.c.refcnt-atomic 2003-12-11 15:50:54.000000000 +1100 + +++ cache.c.perobjectlock 2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100 + @@ -6,11 +6,17 @@ + + struct object + { + + /* These two protected by cache_lock. */ + struct list_head list; + + int popularity; + + + atomic_t refcnt; + + + + /* Doesn't change once created. */ + int id; + + + + spinlock_t lock; /* Protects the name */ + char name[32]; + - int popularity; + }; + + static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(cache_lock); + @@ -77,6 +84,7 @@ + obj->id = id; + obj->popularity = 0; + atomic_set(&obj->refcnt, 1); /* The cache holds a reference */ + + spin_lock_init(&obj->lock); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + __cache_add(obj); + +Note that I decide that the popularity count should be protected by the +``cache_lock`` rather than the per-object lock: this is because it (like +the :c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` inside the object) +is logically part of the infrastructure. This way, I don't need to grab +the lock of every object in :c:func:`__cache_add()` when seeking +the least popular. + +I also decided that the id member is unchangeable, so I don't need to +grab each object lock in :c:func:`__cache_find()` to examine the +id: the object lock is only used by a caller who wants to read or write +the name field. + +Note also that I added a comment describing what data was protected by +which locks. This is extremely important, as it describes the runtime +behavior of the code, and can be hard to gain from just reading. And as +Alan Cox says, “Lock data, not code”. + +Common Problems +=============== + +Deadlock: Simple and Advanced +----------------------------- + +There is a coding bug where a piece of code tries to grab a spinlock +twice: it will spin forever, waiting for the lock to be released +(spinlocks, rwlocks and mutexes are not recursive in Linux). This is +trivial to diagnose: not a +stay-up-five-nights-talk-to-fluffy-code-bunnies kind of problem. + +For a slightly more complex case, imagine you have a region shared by a +softirq and user context. If you use a :c:func:`spin_lock()` call +to protect it, it is possible that the user context will be interrupted +by the softirq while it holds the lock, and the softirq will then spin +forever trying to get the same lock. + +Both of these are called deadlock, and as shown above, it can occur even +with a single CPU (although not on UP compiles, since spinlocks vanish +on kernel compiles with ``CONFIG_SMP``\ =n. You'll still get data +corruption in the second example). + +This complete lockup is easy to diagnose: on SMP boxes the watchdog +timer or compiling with ``DEBUG_SPINLOCK`` set +(``include/linux/spinlock.h``) will show this up immediately when it +happens. + +A more complex problem is the so-called 'deadly embrace', involving two +or more locks. Say you have a hash table: each entry in the table is a +spinlock, and a chain of hashed objects. Inside a softirq handler, you +sometimes want to alter an object from one place in the hash to another: +you grab the spinlock of the old hash chain and the spinlock of the new +hash chain, and delete the object from the old one, and insert it in the +new one. + +There are two problems here. First, if your code ever tries to move the +object to the same chain, it will deadlock with itself as it tries to +lock it twice. Secondly, if the same softirq on another CPU is trying to +move another object in the reverse direction, the following could +happen: + ++-----------------------+-----------------------+ +| CPU 1 | CPU 2 | ++=======================+=======================+ +| Grab lock A -> OK | Grab lock B -> OK | ++-----------------------+-----------------------+ +| Grab lock B -> spin | Grab lock A -> spin | ++-----------------------+-----------------------+ + +Table: Consequences + +The two CPUs will spin forever, waiting for the other to give up their +lock. It will look, smell, and feel like a crash. + +Preventing Deadlock +------------------- + +Textbooks will tell you that if you always lock in the same order, you +will never get this kind of deadlock. Practice will tell you that this +approach doesn't scale: when I create a new lock, I don't understand +enough of the kernel to figure out where in the 5000 lock hierarchy it +will fit. + +The best locks are encapsulated: they never get exposed in headers, and +are never held around calls to non-trivial functions outside the same +file. You can read through this code and see that it will never +deadlock, because it never tries to grab another lock while it has that +one. People using your code don't even need to know you are using a +lock. + +A classic problem here is when you provide callbacks or hooks: if you +call these with the lock held, you risk simple deadlock, or a deadly +embrace (who knows what the callback will do?). Remember, the other +programmers are out to get you, so don't do this. + +Overzealous Prevention Of Deadlocks +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Deadlocks are problematic, but not as bad as data corruption. Code which +grabs a read lock, searches a list, fails to find what it wants, drops +the read lock, grabs a write lock and inserts the object has a race +condition. + +If you don't see why, please stay the fuck away from my code. + +Racing Timers: A Kernel Pastime +------------------------------- + +Timers can produce their own special problems with races. Consider a +collection of objects (list, hash, etc) where each object has a timer +which is due to destroy it. + +If you want to destroy the entire collection (say on module removal), +you might do the following:: + + /* THIS CODE BAD BAD BAD BAD: IF IT WAS ANY WORSE IT WOULD USE + HUNGARIAN NOTATION */ + spin_lock_bh(&list_lock); + + while (list) { + struct foo *next = list->next; + del_timer(&list->timer); + kfree(list); + list = next; + } + + spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock); + + +Sooner or later, this will crash on SMP, because a timer can have just +gone off before the :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()`, and it will only get +the lock after we :c:func:`spin_unlock_bh()`, and then try to free +the element (which has already been freed!). + +This can be avoided by checking the result of +:c:func:`del_timer()`: if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted. +If 0, it means (in this case) that it is currently running, so we can +do:: + + retry: + spin_lock_bh(&list_lock); + + while (list) { + struct foo *next = list->next; + if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) { + /* Give timer a chance to delete this */ + spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock); + goto retry; + } + kfree(list); + list = next; + } + + spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock); + + +Another common problem is deleting timers which restart themselves (by +calling :c:func:`add_timer()` at the end of their timer function). +Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should +use :c:func:`del_timer_sync()` (``include/linux/timer.h``) to +handle this case. It returns the number of times the timer had to be +deleted before we finally stopped it from adding itself back in. + +Locking Speed +============= + +There are three main things to worry about when considering speed of +some code which does locking. First is concurrency: how many things are +going to be waiting while someone else is holding a lock. Second is the +time taken to actually acquire and release an uncontended lock. Third is +using fewer, or smarter locks. I'm assuming that the lock is used fairly +often: otherwise, you wouldn't be concerned about efficiency. + +Concurrency depends on how long the lock is usually held: you should +hold the lock for as long as needed, but no longer. In the cache +example, we always create the object without the lock held, and then +grab the lock only when we are ready to insert it in the list. + +Acquisition times depend on how much damage the lock operations do to +the pipeline (pipeline stalls) and how likely it is that this CPU was +the last one to grab the lock (ie. is the lock cache-hot for this CPU): +on a machine with more CPUs, this likelihood drops fast. Consider a +700MHz Intel Pentium III: an instruction takes about 0.7ns, an atomic +increment takes about 58ns, a lock which is cache-hot on this CPU takes +160ns, and a cacheline transfer from another CPU takes an additional 170 +to 360ns. (These figures from Paul McKenney's `Linux Journal RCU +article <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6993>`__). + +These two aims conflict: holding a lock for a short time might be done +by splitting locks into parts (such as in our final per-object-lock +example), but this increases the number of lock acquisitions, and the +results are often slower than having a single lock. This is another +reason to advocate locking simplicity. + +The third concern is addressed below: there are some methods to reduce +the amount of locking which needs to be done. + +Read/Write Lock Variants +------------------------ + +Both spinlocks and mutexes have read/write variants: ``rwlock_t`` and +:c:type:`struct rw_semaphore <rw_semaphore>`. These divide +users into two classes: the readers and the writers. If you are only +reading the data, you can get a read lock, but to write to the data you +need the write lock. Many people can hold a read lock, but a writer must +be sole holder. + +If your code divides neatly along reader/writer lines (as our cache code +does), and the lock is held by readers for significant lengths of time, +using these locks can help. They are slightly slower than the normal +locks though, so in practice ``rwlock_t`` is not usually worthwhile. + +Avoiding Locks: Read Copy Update +-------------------------------- + +There is a special method of read/write locking called Read Copy Update. +Using RCU, the readers can avoid taking a lock altogether: as we expect +our cache to be read more often than updated (otherwise the cache is a +waste of time), it is a candidate for this optimization. + +How do we get rid of read locks? Getting rid of read locks means that +writers may be changing the list underneath the readers. That is +actually quite simple: we can read a linked list while an element is +being added if the writer adds the element very carefully. For example, +adding ``new`` to a single linked list called ``list``:: + + new->next = list->next; + wmb(); + list->next = new; + + +The :c:func:`wmb()` is a write memory barrier. It ensures that the +first operation (setting the new element's ``next`` pointer) is complete +and will be seen by all CPUs, before the second operation is (putting +the new element into the list). This is important, since modern +compilers and modern CPUs can both reorder instructions unless told +otherwise: we want a reader to either not see the new element at all, or +see the new element with the ``next`` pointer correctly pointing at the +rest of the list. + +Fortunately, there is a function to do this for standard +:c:type:`struct list_head <list_head>` lists: +:c:func:`list_add_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``). + +Removing an element from the list is even simpler: we replace the +pointer to the old element with a pointer to its successor, and readers +will either see it, or skip over it. + +:: + + list->next = old->next; + + +There is :c:func:`list_del_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``) which +does this (the normal version poisons the old object, which we don't +want). + +The reader must also be careful: some CPUs can look through the ``next`` +pointer to start reading the contents of the next element early, but +don't realize that the pre-fetched contents is wrong when the ``next`` +pointer changes underneath them. Once again, there is a +:c:func:`list_for_each_entry_rcu()` (``include/linux/list.h``) +to help you. Of course, writers can just use +:c:func:`list_for_each_entry()`, since there cannot be two +simultaneous writers. + +Our final dilemma is this: when can we actually destroy the removed +element? Remember, a reader might be stepping through this element in +the list right now: if we free this element and the ``next`` pointer +changes, the reader will jump off into garbage and crash. We need to +wait until we know that all the readers who were traversing the list +when we deleted the element are finished. We use +:c:func:`call_rcu()` to register a callback which will actually +destroy the object once all pre-existing readers are finished. +Alternatively, :c:func:`synchronize_rcu()` may be used to block +until all pre-existing are finished. + +But how does Read Copy Update know when the readers are finished? The +method is this: firstly, the readers always traverse the list inside +:c:func:`rcu_read_lock()`/:c:func:`rcu_read_unlock()` pairs: +these simply disable preemption so the reader won't go to sleep while +reading the list. + +RCU then waits until every other CPU has slept at least once: since +readers cannot sleep, we know that any readers which were traversing the +list during the deletion are finished, and the callback is triggered. +The real Read Copy Update code is a little more optimized than this, but +this is the fundamental idea. + +:: + + --- cache.c.perobjectlock 2003-12-11 17:15:03.000000000 +1100 + +++ cache.c.rcupdate 2003-12-11 17:55:14.000000000 +1100 + @@ -1,15 +1,18 @@ + #include <linux/list.h> + #include <linux/slab.h> + #include <linux/string.h> + +#include <linux/rcupdate.h> + #include <linux/mutex.h> + #include <asm/errno.h> + + struct object + { + - /* These two protected by cache_lock. */ + + /* This is protected by RCU */ + struct list_head list; + int popularity; + + + struct rcu_head rcu; + + + atomic_t refcnt; + + /* Doesn't change once created. */ + @@ -40,7 +43,7 @@ + { + struct object *i; + + - list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) { + + list_for_each_entry_rcu(i, &cache, list) { + if (i->id == id) { + i->popularity++; + return i; + @@ -49,19 +52,25 @@ + return NULL; + } + + +/* Final discard done once we know no readers are looking. */ + +static void cache_delete_rcu(void *arg) + +{ + + object_put(arg); + +} + + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static void __cache_delete(struct object *obj) + { + BUG_ON(!obj); + - list_del(&obj->list); + - object_put(obj); + + list_del_rcu(&obj->list); + cache_num--; + + call_rcu(&obj->rcu, cache_delete_rcu); + } + + /* Must be holding cache_lock */ + static void __cache_add(struct object *obj) + { + - list_add(&obj->list, &cache); + + list_add_rcu(&obj->list, &cache); + if (++cache_num > MAX_CACHE_SIZE) { + struct object *i, *outcast = NULL; + list_for_each_entry(i, &cache, list) { + @@ -104,12 +114,11 @@ + struct object *cache_find(int id) + { + struct object *obj; + - unsigned long flags; + + - spin_lock_irqsave(&cache_lock, flags); + + rcu_read_lock(); + obj = __cache_find(id); + if (obj) + object_get(obj); + - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cache_lock, flags); + + rcu_read_unlock(); + return obj; + } + +Note that the reader will alter the popularity member in +:c:func:`__cache_find()`, and now it doesn't hold a lock. One +solution would be to make it an ``atomic_t``, but for this usage, we +don't really care about races: an approximate result is good enough, so +I didn't change it. + +The result is that :c:func:`cache_find()` requires no +synchronization with any other functions, so is almost as fast on SMP as +it would be on UP. + +There is a further optimization possible here: remember our original +cache code, where there were no reference counts and the caller simply +held the lock whenever using the object? This is still possible: if you +hold the lock, no one can delete the object, so you don't need to get +and put the reference count. + +Now, because the 'read lock' in RCU is simply disabling preemption, a +caller which always has preemption disabled between calling +:c:func:`cache_find()` and :c:func:`object_put()` does not +need to actually get and put the reference count: we could expose +:c:func:`__cache_find()` by making it non-static, and such +callers could simply call that. + +The benefit here is that the reference count is not written to: the +object is not altered in any way, which is much faster on SMP machines +due to caching. + +Per-CPU Data +------------ + +Another technique for avoiding locking which is used fairly widely is to +duplicate information for each CPU. For example, if you wanted to keep a +count of a common condition, you could use a spin lock and a single +counter. Nice and simple. + +If that was too slow (it's usually not, but if you've got a really big +machine to test on and can show that it is), you could instead use a +counter for each CPU, then none of them need an exclusive lock. See +:c:func:`DEFINE_PER_CPU()`, :c:func:`get_cpu_var()` and +:c:func:`put_cpu_var()` (``include/linux/percpu.h``). + +Of particular use for simple per-cpu counters is the ``local_t`` type, +and the :c:func:`cpu_local_inc()` and related functions, which are +more efficient than simple code on some architectures +(``include/asm/local.h``). + +Note that there is no simple, reliable way of getting an exact value of +such a counter, without introducing more locks. This is not a problem +for some uses. + +Data Which Mostly Used By An IRQ Handler +---------------------------------------- + +If data is always accessed from within the same IRQ handler, you don't +need a lock at all: the kernel already guarantees that the irq handler +will not run simultaneously on multiple CPUs. + +Manfred Spraul points out that you can still do this, even if the data +is very occasionally accessed in user context or softirqs/tasklets. The +irq handler doesn't use a lock, and all other accesses are done as so:: + + spin_lock(&lock); + disable_irq(irq); + ... + enable_irq(irq); + spin_unlock(&lock); + +The :c:func:`disable_irq()` prevents the irq handler from running +(and waits for it to finish if it's currently running on other CPUs). +The spinlock prevents any other accesses happening at the same time. +Naturally, this is slower than just a :c:func:`spin_lock_irq()` +call, so it only makes sense if this type of access happens extremely +rarely. + +What Functions Are Safe To Call From Interrupts? +================================================ + +Many functions in the kernel sleep (ie. call schedule()) directly or +indirectly: you can never call them while holding a spinlock, or with +preemption disabled. This also means you need to be in user context: +calling them from an interrupt is illegal. + +Some Functions Which Sleep +-------------------------- + +The most common ones are listed below, but you usually have to read the +code to find out if other calls are safe. If everyone else who calls it +can sleep, you probably need to be able to sleep, too. In particular, +registration and deregistration functions usually expect to be called +from user context, and can sleep. + +- Accesses to userspace: + + - :c:func:`copy_from_user()` + + - :c:func:`copy_to_user()` + + - :c:func:`get_user()` + + - :c:func:`put_user()` + +- :c:func:`kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) <kmalloc>` + +- :c:func:`mutex_lock_interruptible()` and + :c:func:`mutex_lock()` + + There is a :c:func:`mutex_trylock()` which does not sleep. + Still, it must not be used inside interrupt context since its + implementation is not safe for that. :c:func:`mutex_unlock()` + will also never sleep. It cannot be used in interrupt context either + since a mutex must be released by the same task that acquired it. + +Some Functions Which Don't Sleep +-------------------------------- + +Some functions are safe to call from any context, or holding almost any +lock. + +- :c:func:`printk()` + +- :c:func:`kfree()` + +- :c:func:`add_timer()` and :c:func:`del_timer()` + +Mutex API reference +=================== + +.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/mutex.h + :internal: + +.. kernel-doc:: kernel/locking/mutex.c + :export: + +Futex API reference +=================== + +.. kernel-doc:: kernel/futex.c + :internal: + +Further reading +=============== + +- ``Documentation/locking/spinlocks.txt``: Linus Torvalds' spinlocking + tutorial in the kernel sources. + +- Unix Systems for Modern Architectures: Symmetric Multiprocessing and + Caching for Kernel Programmers: + + Curt Schimmel's very good introduction to kernel level locking (not + written for Linux, but nearly everything applies). The book is + expensive, but really worth every penny to understand SMP locking. + [ISBN: 0201633388] + +Thanks +====== + +Thanks to Telsa Gwynne for DocBooking, neatening and adding style. + +Thanks to Martin Pool, Philipp Rumpf, Stephen Rothwell, Paul Mackerras, +Ruedi Aschwanden, Alan Cox, Manfred Spraul, Tim Waugh, Pete Zaitcev, +James Morris, Robert Love, Paul McKenney, John Ashby for proofreading, +correcting, flaming, commenting. + +Thanks to the cabal for having no influence on this document. + +Glossary +======== + +preemption + Prior to 2.5, or when ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` is unset, processes in user + context inside the kernel would not preempt each other (ie. you had that + CPU until you gave it up, except for interrupts). With the addition of + ``CONFIG_PREEMPT`` in 2.5.4, this changed: when in user context, higher + priority tasks can "cut in": spinlocks were changed to disable + preemption, even on UP. + +bh + Bottom Half: for historical reasons, functions with '_bh' in them often + now refer to any software interrupt, e.g. :c:func:`spin_lock_bh()` + blocks any software interrupt on the current CPU. Bottom halves are + deprecated, and will eventually be replaced by tasklets. Only one bottom + half will be running at any time. + +Hardware Interrupt / Hardware IRQ + Hardware interrupt request. :c:func:`in_irq()` returns true in a + hardware interrupt handler. + +Interrupt Context + Not user context: processing a hardware irq or software irq. Indicated + by the :c:func:`in_interrupt()` macro returning true. + +SMP + Symmetric Multi-Processor: kernels compiled for multiple-CPU machines. + (``CONFIG_SMP=y``). + +Software Interrupt / softirq + Software interrupt handler. :c:func:`in_irq()` returns false; + :c:func:`in_softirq()` returns true. Tasklets and softirqs both + fall into the category of 'software interrupts'. + + Strictly speaking a softirq is one of up to 32 enumerated software + interrupts which can run on multiple CPUs at once. Sometimes used to + refer to tasklets as well (ie. all software interrupts). + +tasklet + A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is guaranteed to + only run on one CPU at a time. + +timer + A dynamically-registrable software interrupt, which is run at (or close + to) a given time. When running, it is just like a tasklet (in fact, they + are called from the ``TIMER_SOFTIRQ``). + +UP + Uni-Processor: Non-SMP. (``CONFIG_SMP=n``). + +User Context + The kernel executing on behalf of a particular process (ie. a system + call or trap) or kernel thread. You can tell which process with the + ``current`` macro.) Not to be confused with userspace. Can be + interrupted by software or hardware interrupts. + +Userspace + A process executing its own code outside the kernel. |