[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150501101453.GC5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 12:14:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] locking/rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in
wakeup after up_read/up_write
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 05:12:16PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> In up_write()/up_read(), 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. For a heavily contended rwsem, doing a spin_lock() on
> wait_lock will cause further contention on the heavily contended rwsem
> cacheline resulting in delay in the completion of the up_read/up_write
> operations.
>
> This patch makes the wait_lock taking and the call to __rwsem_do_wake()
> optional if at least one spinning writer is present. The spinning
> writer will be able to take the rwsem and call rwsem_wake() later
> when it calls up_write(). With the presence of a spinning writer,
> rwsem_wake() will now try to acquire the lock using trylock. If that
> fails, it will just quit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
Thanks!
--
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