[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553A598E.8080900@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:56:14 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup
after up_read/up_write
On 04/23/2015 05:31 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> It would be nice to not run into this by accident. Please CC all
> relevant parties ;)
>
> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 14:24 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> In up_read()/up_write(), rwsem_wake() will be called whenever it
>> detects that some writers/readers are waiting. The rwsem_wake()
>> function will take the wait_lock and call __rwsem_do_wake() to do
>> the real wakeup. This can be a problem especially for up_read()
>> where many readers can potentially call rwsem_wake() at more or less
>> the same time even though a single call should be enough. This will
>> cause contention in the wait_lock cacheline resulting in delay of
>> the up_read/up_write operations.
> Ok.
>
>> This patch makes the wait_lock taking and the call to __rwsem_do_wake()
>> optional if at least one spinning writer is present.
> But if the lock is taken by readers, like you suggest above, there
> cannot be any active spinners. We always block in these cases.
Yes, you are right. Will fix the log message.
Cheers,
Longman
--
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