[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 11:21:25 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
peter@...leysoftware.com, jason.low2@...com, riel@...hat.com,
alex.shi@...aro.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
davidlohr@...com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] rwsem: Add comments to explain the meaning
of the rwsem's count field
On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 19:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 01:46 -0700, tip-bot for Tim Chen wrote:
> > > Commit-ID: 3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805
> > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805
> > > Author: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > AuthorDate: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:53:57 -0700
> > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > > CommitDate: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:34:26 +0200
> > >
> >
> > Ingo,
> >
> > Can you pick up this version of the patch instead. I've updated the
> > comments to reflect all cases for which the rwsem's count is less
> > than WAITING_BIAS, as Peter has pointed out.
>
> Please send a delta patch against the one I applied - and also the
> state diagram suggestion with Peter, once it's clear what form it
> should take. I've yet to see a state diagram that was inferior to
> equivalent textual description - is this case an exception to that?
>
Ingo,
The delta patch is included below. Thinking a bit more,
the state diagram approach is not necessarily less verbose
because the state is a tuple (count, wait queue state).
After enumerating the states, we may wind up with very similar
to what I have.
Thanks.
Tim
---
>From 490e647f5144a27e09cb987a5216de100de6c253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <490e647f5144a27e09cb987a5216de100de6c253.1399287355.git.tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 03:53:08 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] rwsem: Update comments on rwsem count for count <
WAITING_BIAS
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Paul E.McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Update the comments for rwsem count for the case
where count < WAITING_BIAS. Also some clean up of comments
and added explanation on how the rwsem_down_read_failed
path uses the count field.
Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
---
kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index b4219ff..a794aaa 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -12,24 +12,24 @@
#include <linux/export.h>
/*
- * Guide to the rw_semaphore's count field for common values.
- * (32-bit case illustrated, similar for 64-bit)
+ * Guide to the rw_semaphore's count field.
+ * (32-bit count illustrated in descending order, similar for 64-bit count)
*
* 0x0000000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, no writer waiting
- * X = #active_readers + #readers attempting to lock
- * (X*ACTIVE_BIAS)
+ * where X = #active_readers + #readers attempting to lock
+ * count computed as (X*ACTIVE_BIAS)
*
- * 0x00000000 rwsem is unlocked, and no one is waiting for the lock or
- * attempting to read lock or write lock.
+ * 0x00000000 (1) rwsem is unlocked, and no one is waiting for the lock or
+ * attempting to read lock or write lock.
*
* 0xffff000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, with waiters for lock
- * X = #active readers + # readers attempting lock
+ * where X = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
* (X*ACTIVE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS)
* (2) 1 writer attempting lock, no waiters for lock
- * X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
+ * where X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
* ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
* (3) 1 writer active, no waiters for lock
- * X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
+ * where X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock
* ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
*
* 0xffff0001 (1) 1 reader active or attempting lock, waiters for lock
@@ -43,19 +43,30 @@
* Note: writer can attempt to steal lock for this count by adding
* ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in cmpxchg and checking the old count
*
- * 0xfffe0001 (1) 1 writer active, or attempting lock. Waiters on queue.
- * (ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS)
+ * count < WAITING_BIAS
+ * (1) X writer active, Y writer(s) attempting lock,
+ * Z readers attempting lock, no waiters
+ * where X = 0 or 1, (X+Y) >= 2, Z >= 0
+ * ((X+Y) * ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + Z * ACTIVE_BIAS)
+ * (2) X writer active, Y writer(s) attempting lock,
+ * Z readers attempting lock, waiters for lock
+ * where X = 0 or 1, (X+Y) >= 1, Z >= 0
+ * ((X+Y) * ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + Z * ACTIVE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS)
*
* Note: Readers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_BIAS in down_read and checking
* the count becomes more than 0 for successful lock acquisition,
- * i.e. the case where there are only readers or nobody has lock.
- * (1st and 2nd case above).
+ * i.e. the case where there are only readers locking or nobody has lock.
+ * (1st and 2nd case above). In rwsem_down_read failed, after
+ * putting itself on the wait queue, it will check again if there are
+ * only readers locking, nobody has lock or it is first in queue (1, 2, and
+ * 5th case), and call __rwsem_do_wake to wake up waiter at front
+ * of queue to attempt locking again.
*
* Writers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in down_write and
* checking the count becomes ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS for successful lock
* acquisition (i.e. nobody else has lock or attempts lock). If
* unsuccessful, in rwsem_down_write_failed, we'll check to see if there
- * are only waiters but none active (5th case above), and attempt to
+ * are only waiters but none active (5th case), and attempt to
* steal the lock.
*
*/
--
1.7.11.7
--
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