[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTipJJcjU57l7Mju@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:14:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking: rwbase: Take care of ordering guarantee for
fastpath reader
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 01:51:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:06:27PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> @@ -201,23 +207,30 @@ static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
> {
> struct rt_mutex_base *rtm = &rwb->rtmutex;
> unsigned long flags;
> + int readers;
>
> /* Take the rtmutex as a first step */
> if (rwbase_rtmutex_lock_state(rtm, state))
> return -EINTR;
>
> /* Force readers into slow path */
> - atomic_sub(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
> + readers = atomic_sub_return_relaxed(READER_BIAS, &rwb->readers);
Hurmph... the above really begs for something like
if (!readers)
return 0;
But then we needs that _acquire() thing again :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists