[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150204120621.GH23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:06:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] locking/rwsem: Avoid deceiving lock spinners
On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 11:43:36AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> That's true. We cannot have the lock grabbed by a new write
> contender as any new writer contender of the lock will be
> queued by the OSQ logic. Only the
> thread doing the optimistic spin is attempting write lock.
> In other word, switching of write owner of the rwsem to a new
> owner cannot happen. Either write owner stay as the original one, or
> we don't have a write owner. So using test of write owner
> switching as an indicator of congestion is incorrect.
>
> If my reasoning above is sound, then the check
>
> + if (READ_ONCE(sem->owner))
> + return true; /* new owner, continue spinning */
> +
>
> is unnecessary and can be removed, as we cannot have a
> new write owner of the rwsem, other than the thread
> doing optimistic spinning.
I have read the rest of the thread; but the one thing that I didn't see
is trylocks, trylocks can always come in an steal things regardless of
the OSQ stuff.
--
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