[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <513201B7.5070004@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:42:15 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, sbw@....edu, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
On 02/03/13 02:28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> a couple of questions.
>
> This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
> am trying to understand what I missed. See
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136196350213593
Michel changed my old draft version a little, his version is good enough for me.
My new version tries to add a little better nestable support with only
adding single __this_cpu_op() in _read_[un]lock().
>
> And I can't understand FALLBACK_BASE...
>
> OK, suppose that CPU_0 does _write_unlock() and releases ->fallback_rwlock.
>
> CPU_1 does _read_lock(), and ...
>
>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>> +{
>> + struct lglock *lg = &lgrw->lglock;
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + rwlock_acquire_read(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> + if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt))) {
>> + if (!arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lg->lock))) {
>
> _trylock() fails,
>
>> + read_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>> + __this_cpu_add(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);
>
> so we take ->fallback_rwlock and ->reader_refcnt == FALLBACK_BASE.
>
> CPU_0 does lg_global_unlock(lgrw->lglock) and finishes _write_unlock().
>
> Interrupt handler on CPU_1 does _read_lock() notices ->reader_refcnt != 0
> and simply does this_cpu_inc(), so reader_refcnt == FALLBACK_BASE + 1.
>
> Then irq does _read_unlock(), and
>
>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>> +{
>> + switch (__this_cpu_dec_return(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
>> + case 0:
>> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>> + return;
>> + case FALLBACK_BASE:
>> + __this_cpu_sub(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);
>> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>
> hits this case?
>
> Doesn't look right, but most probably I missed something.
Your are right, I just realized that I had spit a code which should be atomic.
I hope this patch(V2) can get more reviews.
My first and many locking knowledge is learned from Paul.
Paul, would you also review it?
Thanks,
Lai
>
> Oleg.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists