[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150410090439.GB28549@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:04:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in
rwsem_spin_on_owner()
* Jason Low <jason.low2@...com> wrote:
> +static inline bool owner_running(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct task_struct *owner)
> +{
> + bool ret;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +#endif
> + if (READ_ONCE(sem->owner) == owner) {
> + /*
> + * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu dereference
> + * after checking sem->owner still matches owner.
> + */
> + barrier();
> + ret = owner->on_cpu;
> + } else {
> + /* Owner changed. */
> + ret = false;
> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +#endif
> + return ret;
> +}
So I really don't like this due to the assymetric RCU pattern. (Also,
the fact that we might read from already freed kernel memory here
needs big honking comments.)
But, I think we can do this differently, see the patch I just sent:
[PATCH] mutex: Speed up mutex_spin_on_owner() by not taking the RCU lock
that should I think work just as well, without having to introduce
owner_running() as the whole mutex_spin_on_owner() logic is kept
pretty simple.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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