| ======================================== |
| A description of what robust futexes are |
| ======================================== |
| |
| :Started by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> |
| |
| Background |
| ---------- |
| |
| what are robust futexes? To answer that, we first need to understand |
| what futexes are: normal futexes are special types of locks that in the |
| noncontended case can be acquired/released from userspace without having |
| to enter the kernel. |
| |
| A futex is in essence a user-space address, e.g. a 32-bit lock variable |
| field. If userspace notices contention (the lock is already owned and |
| someone else wants to grab it too) then the lock is marked with a value |
| that says "there's a waiter pending", and the sys_futex(FUTEX_WAIT) |
| syscall is used to wait for the other guy to release it. The kernel |
| creates a 'futex queue' internally, so that it can later on match up the |
| waiter with the waker - without them having to know about each other. |
| When the owner thread releases the futex, it notices (via the variable |
| value) that there were waiter(s) pending, and does the |
| sys_futex(FUTEX_WAKE) syscall to wake them up. Once all waiters have |
| taken and released the lock, the futex is again back to 'uncontended' |
| state, and there's no in-kernel state associated with it. The kernel |
| completely forgets that there ever was a futex at that address. This |
| method makes futexes very lightweight and scalable. |
| |
| "Robustness" is about dealing with crashes while holding a lock: if a |
| process exits prematurely while holding a pthread_mutex_t lock that is |
| also shared with some other process (e.g. yum segfaults while holding a |
| pthread_mutex_t, or yum is kill -9-ed), then waiters for that lock need |
| to be notified that the last owner of the lock exited in some irregular |
| way. |
| |
| To solve such types of problems, "robust mutex" userspace APIs were |
| created: pthread_mutex_lock() returns an error value if the owner exits |
| prematurely - and the new owner can decide whether the data protected by |
| the lock can be recovered safely. |
| |
| There is a big conceptual problem with futex based mutexes though: it is |
| the kernel that destroys the owner task (e.g. due to a SEGFAULT), but |
| the kernel cannot help with the cleanup: if there is no 'futex queue' |
| (and in most cases there is none, futexes being fast lightweight locks) |
| then the kernel has no information to clean up after the held lock! |
| Userspace has no chance to clean up after the lock either - userspace is |
| the one that crashes, so it has no opportunity to clean up. Catch-22. |
| |
| In practice, when e.g. yum is kill -9-ed (or segfaults), a system reboot |
| is needed to release that futex based lock. This is one of the leading |
| bugreports against yum. |
| |
| To solve this problem, the traditional approach was to extend the vma |
| (virtual memory area descriptor) concept to have a notion of 'pending |
| robust futexes attached to this area'. This approach requires 3 new |
| syscall variants to sys_futex(): FUTEX_REGISTER, FUTEX_DEREGISTER and |
| FUTEX_RECOVER. At do_exit() time, all vmas are searched to see whether |
| they have a robust_head set. This approach has two fundamental problems |
| left: |
| |
| - it has quite complex locking and race scenarios. The vma-based |
| approach had been pending for years, but they are still not completely |
| reliable. |
| |
| - they have to scan _every_ vma at sys_exit() time, per thread! |
| |
| The second disadvantage is a real killer: pthread_exit() takes around 1 |
| microsecond on Linux, but with thousands (or tens of thousands) of vmas |
| every pthread_exit() takes a millisecond or more, also totally |
| destroying the CPU's L1 and L2 caches! |
| |
| This is very much noticeable even for normal process sys_exit_group() |
| calls: the kernel has to do the vma scanning unconditionally! (this is |
| because the kernel has no knowledge about how many robust futexes there |
| are to be cleaned up, because a robust futex might have been registered |
| in another task, and the futex variable might have been simply mmap()-ed |
| into this process's address space). |
| |
| This huge overhead forced the creation of CONFIG_FUTEX_ROBUST so that |
| normal kernels can turn it off, but worse than that: the overhead makes |
| robust futexes impractical for any type of generic Linux distribution. |
| |
| So something had to be done. |
| |
| New approach to robust futexes |
| ------------------------------ |
| |
| At the heart of this new approach there is a per-thread private list of |
| robust locks that userspace is holding (maintained by glibc) - which |
| userspace list is registered with the kernel via a new syscall [this |
| registration happens at most once per thread lifetime]. At do_exit() |
| time, the kernel checks this user-space list: are there any robust futex |
| locks to be cleaned up? |
| |
| In the common case, at do_exit() time, there is no list registered, so |
| the cost of robust futexes is just a simple current->robust_list != NULL |
| comparison. If the thread has registered a list, then normally the list |
| is empty. If the thread/process crashed or terminated in some incorrect |
| way then the list might be non-empty: in this case the kernel carefully |
| walks the list [not trusting it], and marks all locks that are owned by |
| this thread with the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit, and wakes up one waiter (if |
| any). |
| |
| The list is guaranteed to be private and per-thread at do_exit() time, |
| so it can be accessed by the kernel in a lockless way. |
| |
| There is one race possible though: since adding to and removing from the |
| list is done after the futex is acquired by glibc, there is a few |
| instructions window for the thread (or process) to die there, leaving |
| the futex hung. To protect against this possibility, userspace (glibc) |
| also maintains a simple per-thread 'list_op_pending' field, to allow the |
| kernel to clean up if the thread dies after acquiring the lock, but just |
| before it could have added itself to the list. Glibc sets this |
| list_op_pending field before it tries to acquire the futex, and clears |
| it after the list-add (or list-remove) has finished. |
| |
| That's all that is needed - all the rest of robust-futex cleanup is done |
| in userspace [just like with the previous patches]. |
| |
| Ulrich Drepper has implemented the necessary glibc support for this new |
| mechanism, which fully enables robust mutexes. |
| |
| Key differences of this userspace-list based approach, compared to the |
| vma based method: |
| |
| - it's much, much faster: at thread exit time, there's no need to loop |
| over every vma (!), which the VM-based method has to do. Only a very |
| simple 'is the list empty' op is done. |
| |
| - no VM changes are needed - 'struct address_space' is left alone. |
| |
| - no registration of individual locks is needed: robust mutexes don't |
| need any extra per-lock syscalls. Robust mutexes thus become a very |
| lightweight primitive - so they don't force the application designer |
| to do a hard choice between performance and robustness - robust |
| mutexes are just as fast. |
| |
| - no per-lock kernel allocation happens. |
| |
| - no resource limits are needed. |
| |
| - no kernel-space recovery call (FUTEX_RECOVER) is needed. |
| |
| - the implementation and the locking is "obvious", and there are no |
| interactions with the VM. |
| |
| Performance |
| ----------- |
| |
| I have benchmarked the time needed for the kernel to process a list of 1 |
| million (!) held locks, using the new method [on a 2GHz CPU]: |
| |
| - with FUTEX_WAIT set [contended mutex]: 130 msecs |
| - without FUTEX_WAIT set [uncontended mutex]: 30 msecs |
| |
| I have also measured an approach where glibc does the lock notification |
| [which it currently does for !pshared robust mutexes], and that took 256 |
| msecs - clearly slower, due to the 1 million FUTEX_WAKE syscalls |
| userspace had to do. |
| |
| (1 million held locks are unheard of - we expect at most a handful of |
| locks to be held at a time. Nevertheless it's nice to know that this |
| approach scales nicely.) |
| |
| Implementation details |
| ---------------------- |
| |
| The patch adds two new syscalls: one to register the userspace list, and |
| one to query the registered list pointer:: |
| |
| asmlinkage long |
| sys_set_robust_list(struct robust_list_head __user *head, |
| size_t len); |
| |
| asmlinkage long |
| sys_get_robust_list(int pid, struct robust_list_head __user **head_ptr, |
| size_t __user *len_ptr); |
| |
| List registration is very fast: the pointer is simply stored in |
| current->robust_list. [Note that in the future, if robust futexes become |
| widespread, we could extend sys_clone() to register a robust-list head |
| for new threads, without the need of another syscall.] |
| |
| So there is virtually zero overhead for tasks not using robust futexes, |
| and even for robust futex users, there is only one extra syscall per |
| thread lifetime, and the cleanup operation, if it happens, is fast and |
| straightforward. The kernel doesn't have any internal distinction between |
| robust and normal futexes. |
| |
| If a futex is found to be held at exit time, the kernel sets the |
| following bit of the futex word:: |
| |
| #define FUTEX_OWNER_DIED 0x40000000 |
| |
| and wakes up the next futex waiter (if any). User-space does the rest of |
| the cleanup. |
| |
| Otherwise, robust futexes are acquired by glibc by putting the TID into |
| the futex field atomically. Waiters set the FUTEX_WAITERS bit:: |
| |
| #define FUTEX_WAITERS 0x80000000 |
| |
| and the remaining bits are for the TID. |
| |
| Testing, architecture support |
| ----------------------------- |
| |
| I've tested the new syscalls on x86 and x86_64, and have made sure the |
| parsing of the userspace list is robust [ ;-) ] even if the list is |
| deliberately corrupted. |
| |
| i386 and x86_64 syscalls are wired up at the moment, and Ulrich has |
| tested the new glibc code (on x86_64 and i386), and it works for his |
| robust-mutex testcases. |
| |
| All other architectures should build just fine too - but they won't have |
| the new syscalls yet. |
| |
| Architectures need to implement the new futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() |
| inline function before writing up the syscalls (that function returns |
| -ENOSYS right now). |