[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190410183813.n4sybugomkn53gvu@linux-r8p5>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:38:13 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 03/12] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup
optimization
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
>With the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem: Reduce spinlock contention
>in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()"), the rwsem_wake() forgoes doing
>a wakeup if the wait_lock cannot be directly acquired and an optimistic
>spinning locker is present. This can help performance by avoiding
>spinning on the wait_lock when it is contended.
>
>With the later commit 133e89ef5ef3 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lockless
>waiter wakeup(s)"), the performance advantage of the above optimization
>diminishes as the average wait_lock hold time become much shorter.
>
>By supporting rwsem lock handoff, we can no longer relies on the fact
>that the presence of an optimistic spinning locker will ensure that the
>lock will be acquired by a task soon. This can lead to missed wakeup
>and application hang. So the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem:
>Reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()")
>will have to be reverted.
>
>Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>---
> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 74 -------------------------------------
I very much like removing this code. It was rather crazy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists