Commit f2646ba3 authored by Heiko Carstens's avatar Heiko Carstens Committed by Stefan Bader

UBUNTU: SAUCE: (no-up) s390: fix rwlock implementation

BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1761674

Description:  kernel: fix rwlock implementation
Symptom:      Kernel hangs, due to deadlock on an rwlock.
Problem:      With upstream commit 94232a43 ("s390/rwlock: improve writer
              fairness") rwlock writer fairness was supposed to be
              implemented. If a writer tries to take an rwlock it sets
              unconditionally the writer bit within the lock word and waits
              until all readers have released the lock. This however can lead
              to a deadlock since rwlocks can be taken recursively by readers.
              If e.g. CPU 0 holds the lock as a reader, and CPU 1 wants to
              write-lock the lock, then CPU 1 sets the writer bit and
              afterwards busy waits for CPU 0 to release the lock. If now CPU 0
              tries to read-lock the lock again (recursively) it will also busy
              wait until CPU 1 removes the writer bit, which will never happen,
              since it waits for the first reader on CPU 0 to release the lock.
Solution:     Revert the rwlock writer fairness semantics again.
Signed-off-by: default avatarHeiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJoseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>
Acked-by: default avatarStefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
Acked-by: default avatarKleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarStefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
parent ae72c070
...@@ -182,42 +182,18 @@ int _raw_read_trylock_retry(arch_rwlock_t *rw) ...@@ -182,42 +182,18 @@ int _raw_read_trylock_retry(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_read_trylock_retry); EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_read_trylock_retry);
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES
void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw, unsigned int prev) void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw, unsigned int prev)
{ #else
unsigned int owner, old;
int count = spin_retry;
owner = 0;
while (1) {
if (count-- <= 0) {
if (owner && !smp_vcpu_scheduled(~owner))
smp_yield_cpu(~owner);
count = spin_retry;
}
old = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->lock);
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->owner);
smp_mb();
if ((int) old >= 0) {
prev = __RAW_LOCK(&rw->lock, 0x80000000, __RAW_OP_OR);
old = prev;
}
if ((old & 0x7fffffff) == 0 && (int) prev >= 0)
break;
if (MACHINE_HAS_CAD)
_raw_compare_and_delay(&rw->lock, old);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_write_lock_wait);
#else /* CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES */
void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw) void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
#endif
{ {
unsigned int owner, old, prev; unsigned int owner, old;
int count = spin_retry; int count = spin_retry;
prev = 0x80000000; #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES
if ((int) prev > 0)
__RAW_UNLOCK(&rw->lock, 0x7fffffff, __RAW_OP_AND);
#endif
owner = 0; owner = 0;
while (1) { while (1) {
if (count-- <= 0) { if (count-- <= 0) {
...@@ -227,12 +203,8 @@ void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw) ...@@ -227,12 +203,8 @@ void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
} }
old = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->lock); old = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->lock);
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->owner); owner = ACCESS_ONCE(rw->owner);
if ((int) old >= 0 && if (old == 0 &&
_raw_compare_and_swap(&rw->lock, old, old | 0x80000000)) _raw_compare_and_swap(&rw->lock, 0, 0x80000000))
prev = old;
else
smp_mb();
if ((old & 0x7fffffff) == 0 && (int) prev >= 0)
break; break;
if (MACHINE_HAS_CAD) if (MACHINE_HAS_CAD)
_raw_compare_and_delay(&rw->lock, old); _raw_compare_and_delay(&rw->lock, old);
...@@ -240,8 +212,6 @@ void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw) ...@@ -240,8 +212,6 @@ void _raw_write_lock_wait(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
} }
EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_write_lock_wait); EXPORT_SYMBOL(_raw_write_lock_wait);
#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_MARCH_Z196_FEATURES */
int _raw_write_trylock_retry(arch_rwlock_t *rw) int _raw_write_trylock_retry(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
{ {
unsigned int old; unsigned int old;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment