Re: Unfair qspinlocks on ARM64 without LSE atomics => 3ms delay in interrupt handling

[Jan Kiszka]

On 26.04.23 23:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26 2023 at 12:03, Zdenek Bouska wrote:
>> following patch is my current approach for fixing this issue. I introduced
>> big_cpu_relax(), which uses Will's implementation [1] on ARM64 without
>> LSE atomics and original cpu_relax() on any other CPU.
> 
> Why is this interrupt handling specific? Just because it's the place
> where you observed it?
> 
> That's a general issue for any code which uses atomics for forward
> progress. LL/SC simply does not guarantee that.
> 
> So if that helps, then this needs to be addressed globaly and not with
> some crude hack in the interrupt handling code.

My impression is that the retry loop of irq_finalize_oneshot is
particularly susceptible to that issue due to the high acquire/relax
pressure and inter-dependency between holder and waiter it generates -
which does not mean it cannot occur in other places.

Are we aware of other concrete case where it bites? Even with just
"normal" contented spin_lock usage?

> 
>> Anyone has a better idea how to solve this issue properly?
> 
> Use hardware with LSE atomics :)

That would generate tons of waste of current electronic devices without
it - not very fashionable anymore. ;)

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Technology
Competence Center Embedded Linux