[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430245038.2004.21.camel@stgolabs.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:17:18 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
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 v3] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup
after up_read/up_write
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:25 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * up_write() cleared the owner field before calling this function.
> >> + * If that field is now set, a writer must have stolen the lock and
> >> + * the wakeup operation should be aborted.
> >> + */
> >> + if (rwsem_has_active_writer(sem))
> >> + goto out;
> > We currently allow small races between rwsem owner and counter checks.
> > And __rwsem_do_wake() can be called by checking the former -- and lock
> > stealing is done with the counter as well. Please see below how we back
> > out of such cases, as it is very much considered when granting the next
> > reader. So nack to this as is, sorry.
>
> If the first one in the queue is a writer, wake_up_process() may be
> called directly which can be quite expensive if the lock has already
> been stolen as the task will have to sleep again.
But how can this occur? Lock stealing takes form in two places:
1) fastpath: only if the counter is 0 -- which, since we are discussing
waking up waiter(s) code, obviously cannot occur.
2) With the cmpxchg() in rwsem_try_write_lock(), which is serialized
with the wait_lock, so again this cannot occur.
Which is why this is not considered in __rwsem_do_wake() when waking the
writer fist in the queue.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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