[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <554137EC.4030700@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:58:36 -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 v3] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup
after up_read/up_write
On 04/28/2015 02:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 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
>
A write lock can also be acquired by a spinning writer in
rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued() where wait_lock isn't used. With
multiple down_read's, it is possible that the first exiting reader wakes
up a writer who acquires the write lock while the other readers are
waiting for acquiring the wait_lock.
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