Mauro Carvalho Chehab | 773810d | 2017-05-17 06:46:19 -0300 | [diff] [blame^] | 1 | ======================================== |
| 2 | A description of what robust futexes are |
| 3 | ======================================== |
| 4 | |
| 5 | :Started by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 6 | |
| 7 | Background |
| 8 | ---------- |
| 9 | |
| 10 | what are robust futexes? To answer that, we first need to understand |
| 11 | what futexes are: normal futexes are special types of locks that in the |
| 12 | noncontended case can be acquired/released from userspace without having |
| 13 | to enter the kernel. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | A futex is in essence a user-space address, e.g. a 32-bit lock variable |
| 16 | field. If userspace notices contention (the lock is already owned and |
| 17 | someone else wants to grab it too) then the lock is marked with a value |
| 18 | that says "there's a waiter pending", and the sys_futex(FUTEX_WAIT) |
| 19 | syscall is used to wait for the other guy to release it. The kernel |
| 20 | creates a 'futex queue' internally, so that it can later on match up the |
| 21 | waiter with the waker - without them having to know about each other. |
| 22 | When the owner thread releases the futex, it notices (via the variable |
| 23 | value) that there were waiter(s) pending, and does the |
| 24 | sys_futex(FUTEX_WAKE) syscall to wake them up. Once all waiters have |
| 25 | taken and released the lock, the futex is again back to 'uncontended' |
| 26 | state, and there's no in-kernel state associated with it. The kernel |
| 27 | completely forgets that there ever was a futex at that address. This |
| 28 | method makes futexes very lightweight and scalable. |
| 29 | |
| 30 | "Robustness" is about dealing with crashes while holding a lock: if a |
| 31 | process exits prematurely while holding a pthread_mutex_t lock that is |
| 32 | also shared with some other process (e.g. yum segfaults while holding a |
| 33 | pthread_mutex_t, or yum is kill -9-ed), then waiters for that lock need |
| 34 | to be notified that the last owner of the lock exited in some irregular |
| 35 | way. |
| 36 | |
| 37 | To solve such types of problems, "robust mutex" userspace APIs were |
| 38 | created: pthread_mutex_lock() returns an error value if the owner exits |
| 39 | prematurely - and the new owner can decide whether the data protected by |
| 40 | the lock can be recovered safely. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | There is a big conceptual problem with futex based mutexes though: it is |
| 43 | the kernel that destroys the owner task (e.g. due to a SEGFAULT), but |
| 44 | the kernel cannot help with the cleanup: if there is no 'futex queue' |
| 45 | (and in most cases there is none, futexes being fast lightweight locks) |
| 46 | then the kernel has no information to clean up after the held lock! |
| 47 | Userspace has no chance to clean up after the lock either - userspace is |
| 48 | the one that crashes, so it has no opportunity to clean up. Catch-22. |
| 49 | |
| 50 | In practice, when e.g. yum is kill -9-ed (or segfaults), a system reboot |
| 51 | is needed to release that futex based lock. This is one of the leading |
| 52 | bugreports against yum. |
| 53 | |
| 54 | To solve this problem, the traditional approach was to extend the vma |
| 55 | (virtual memory area descriptor) concept to have a notion of 'pending |
| 56 | robust futexes attached to this area'. This approach requires 3 new |
| 57 | syscall variants to sys_futex(): FUTEX_REGISTER, FUTEX_DEREGISTER and |
| 58 | FUTEX_RECOVER. At do_exit() time, all vmas are searched to see whether |
| 59 | they have a robust_head set. This approach has two fundamental problems |
| 60 | left: |
| 61 | |
| 62 | - it has quite complex locking and race scenarios. The vma-based |
| 63 | approach had been pending for years, but they are still not completely |
| 64 | reliable. |
| 65 | |
| 66 | - they have to scan _every_ vma at sys_exit() time, per thread! |
| 67 | |
| 68 | The second disadvantage is a real killer: pthread_exit() takes around 1 |
| 69 | microsecond on Linux, but with thousands (or tens of thousands) of vmas |
| 70 | every pthread_exit() takes a millisecond or more, also totally |
| 71 | destroying the CPU's L1 and L2 caches! |
| 72 | |
| 73 | This is very much noticeable even for normal process sys_exit_group() |
| 74 | calls: the kernel has to do the vma scanning unconditionally! (this is |
| 75 | because the kernel has no knowledge about how many robust futexes there |
| 76 | are to be cleaned up, because a robust futex might have been registered |
| 77 | in another task, and the futex variable might have been simply mmap()-ed |
| 78 | into this process's address space). |
| 79 | |
| 80 | This huge overhead forced the creation of CONFIG_FUTEX_ROBUST so that |
| 81 | normal kernels can turn it off, but worse than that: the overhead makes |
| 82 | robust futexes impractical for any type of generic Linux distribution. |
| 83 | |
| 84 | So something had to be done. |
| 85 | |
| 86 | New approach to robust futexes |
| 87 | ------------------------------ |
| 88 | |
| 89 | At the heart of this new approach there is a per-thread private list of |
| 90 | robust locks that userspace is holding (maintained by glibc) - which |
| 91 | userspace list is registered with the kernel via a new syscall [this |
| 92 | registration happens at most once per thread lifetime]. At do_exit() |
| 93 | time, the kernel checks this user-space list: are there any robust futex |
| 94 | locks to be cleaned up? |
| 95 | |
| 96 | In the common case, at do_exit() time, there is no list registered, so |
| 97 | the cost of robust futexes is just a simple current->robust_list != NULL |
| 98 | comparison. If the thread has registered a list, then normally the list |
| 99 | is empty. If the thread/process crashed or terminated in some incorrect |
| 100 | way then the list might be non-empty: in this case the kernel carefully |
| 101 | walks the list [not trusting it], and marks all locks that are owned by |
Ingo Molnar | 6abdce7 | 2006-06-27 02:54:48 -0700 | [diff] [blame] | 102 | this thread with the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit, and wakes up one waiter (if |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 103 | any). |
| 104 | |
| 105 | The list is guaranteed to be private and per-thread at do_exit() time, |
| 106 | so it can be accessed by the kernel in a lockless way. |
| 107 | |
| 108 | There is one race possible though: since adding to and removing from the |
| 109 | list is done after the futex is acquired by glibc, there is a few |
| 110 | instructions window for the thread (or process) to die there, leaving |
| 111 | the futex hung. To protect against this possibility, userspace (glibc) |
| 112 | also maintains a simple per-thread 'list_op_pending' field, to allow the |
| 113 | kernel to clean up if the thread dies after acquiring the lock, but just |
| 114 | before it could have added itself to the list. Glibc sets this |
| 115 | list_op_pending field before it tries to acquire the futex, and clears |
| 116 | it after the list-add (or list-remove) has finished. |
| 117 | |
| 118 | That's all that is needed - all the rest of robust-futex cleanup is done |
| 119 | in userspace [just like with the previous patches]. |
| 120 | |
| 121 | Ulrich Drepper has implemented the necessary glibc support for this new |
| 122 | mechanism, which fully enables robust mutexes. |
| 123 | |
| 124 | Key differences of this userspace-list based approach, compared to the |
| 125 | vma based method: |
| 126 | |
| 127 | - it's much, much faster: at thread exit time, there's no need to loop |
| 128 | over every vma (!), which the VM-based method has to do. Only a very |
| 129 | simple 'is the list empty' op is done. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | - no VM changes are needed - 'struct address_space' is left alone. |
| 132 | |
Eric Engestrom | 86cbbe2 | 2016-04-25 07:37:00 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 133 | - no registration of individual locks is needed: robust mutexes don't |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 134 | need any extra per-lock syscalls. Robust mutexes thus become a very |
Eric Engestrom | 86cbbe2 | 2016-04-25 07:37:00 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 135 | lightweight primitive - so they don't force the application designer |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 136 | to do a hard choice between performance and robustness - robust |
| 137 | mutexes are just as fast. |
| 138 | |
| 139 | - no per-lock kernel allocation happens. |
| 140 | |
| 141 | - no resource limits are needed. |
| 142 | |
| 143 | - no kernel-space recovery call (FUTEX_RECOVER) is needed. |
| 144 | |
| 145 | - the implementation and the locking is "obvious", and there are no |
| 146 | interactions with the VM. |
| 147 | |
| 148 | Performance |
| 149 | ----------- |
| 150 | |
| 151 | I have benchmarked the time needed for the kernel to process a list of 1 |
| 152 | million (!) held locks, using the new method [on a 2GHz CPU]: |
| 153 | |
| 154 | - with FUTEX_WAIT set [contended mutex]: 130 msecs |
| 155 | - without FUTEX_WAIT set [uncontended mutex]: 30 msecs |
| 156 | |
| 157 | I have also measured an approach where glibc does the lock notification |
| 158 | [which it currently does for !pshared robust mutexes], and that took 256 |
| 159 | msecs - clearly slower, due to the 1 million FUTEX_WAKE syscalls |
| 160 | userspace had to do. |
| 161 | |
| 162 | (1 million held locks are unheard of - we expect at most a handful of |
| 163 | locks to be held at a time. Nevertheless it's nice to know that this |
| 164 | approach scales nicely.) |
| 165 | |
| 166 | Implementation details |
| 167 | ---------------------- |
| 168 | |
| 169 | The patch adds two new syscalls: one to register the userspace list, and |
Mauro Carvalho Chehab | 773810d | 2017-05-17 06:46:19 -0300 | [diff] [blame^] | 170 | one to query the registered list pointer:: |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 171 | |
| 172 | asmlinkage long |
| 173 | sys_set_robust_list(struct robust_list_head __user *head, |
| 174 | size_t len); |
| 175 | |
| 176 | asmlinkage long |
| 177 | sys_get_robust_list(int pid, struct robust_list_head __user **head_ptr, |
| 178 | size_t __user *len_ptr); |
| 179 | |
| 180 | List registration is very fast: the pointer is simply stored in |
| 181 | current->robust_list. [Note that in the future, if robust futexes become |
| 182 | widespread, we could extend sys_clone() to register a robust-list head |
| 183 | for new threads, without the need of another syscall.] |
| 184 | |
| 185 | So there is virtually zero overhead for tasks not using robust futexes, |
| 186 | and even for robust futex users, there is only one extra syscall per |
| 187 | thread lifetime, and the cleanup operation, if it happens, is fast and |
Matt LaPlante | 5d3f083 | 2006-11-30 05:21:10 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 188 | straightforward. The kernel doesn't have any internal distinction between |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 189 | robust and normal futexes. |
| 190 | |
| 191 | If a futex is found to be held at exit time, the kernel sets the |
Mauro Carvalho Chehab | 773810d | 2017-05-17 06:46:19 -0300 | [diff] [blame^] | 192 | following bit of the futex word:: |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 193 | |
| 194 | #define FUTEX_OWNER_DIED 0x40000000 |
| 195 | |
| 196 | and wakes up the next futex waiter (if any). User-space does the rest of |
| 197 | the cleanup. |
| 198 | |
| 199 | Otherwise, robust futexes are acquired by glibc by putting the TID into |
Mauro Carvalho Chehab | 773810d | 2017-05-17 06:46:19 -0300 | [diff] [blame^] | 200 | the futex field atomically. Waiters set the FUTEX_WAITERS bit:: |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 201 | |
| 202 | #define FUTEX_WAITERS 0x80000000 |
| 203 | |
| 204 | and the remaining bits are for the TID. |
| 205 | |
| 206 | Testing, architecture support |
| 207 | ----------------------------- |
| 208 | |
Eric Engestrom | 86cbbe2 | 2016-04-25 07:37:00 +0100 | [diff] [blame] | 209 | I've tested the new syscalls on x86 and x86_64, and have made sure the |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 210 | parsing of the userspace list is robust [ ;-) ] even if the list is |
| 211 | deliberately corrupted. |
| 212 | |
| 213 | i386 and x86_64 syscalls are wired up at the moment, and Ulrich has |
| 214 | tested the new glibc code (on x86_64 and i386), and it works for his |
| 215 | robust-mutex testcases. |
| 216 | |
Carlos Garcia | c98be0c | 2014-04-04 22:31:00 -0400 | [diff] [blame] | 217 | All other architectures should build just fine too - but they won't have |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 218 | the new syscalls yet. |
| 219 | |
Ingo Molnar | 8f17d3a | 2006-03-27 01:16:27 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 220 | Architectures need to implement the new futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() |
Ingo Molnar | 2eec9ad | 2006-03-27 01:16:23 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 221 | inline function before writing up the syscalls (that function returns |
| 222 | -ENOSYS right now). |