[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190410150714.GK7905@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 17:07:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 02/12] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to
prevent lock starvation
On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 03:21:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Because of writer lock stealing, it is possible that a constant
> stream of incoming writers will cause a waiting writer or reader to
> wait indefinitely leading to lock starvation.
>
> The mutex code has a lock handoff mechanism to prevent lock starvation.
> This patch implements a similar lock handoff mechanism to disable
> lock stealing and force lock handoff to the first waiter in the queue
> after at least a 5ms waiting period. The waiting period is used to
> avoid discouraging lock stealing too much to affect performance.
So the mutex code doesn't have that timeout, it foces the handoff if the
top waiter fails to acquire.
I don't find the above sufficiently justifies the additional complexity.
What were the numbers with the simple scheme vs this etc..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists