[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220511133459.GZ76023@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 15:34:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Reduce cacheline contention for
rwlocks used in interrupt context
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:44:55AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > I'm confused; prior to this change:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> >
> > write_lock_irq(&l)
> > read_lock(&l)
> > <INRQ>
> > read_lock(&l)
> > ...
> >
> > was not deadlock, but now it would AFAICT.
>
> Oh you are right. I missed that scenario in my analysis. My bad.
No worries; I suppose we can also still do something like:
void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, int cnts)
{
/*
* the big comment
*/
if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
/*
* If not write-locked, insta-grant the reader
*/
if (!(cnts & _QW_LOCKED))
return;
/*
* otherwise, wait for the writer to go away.
*/
atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, !(VAL & _QW_LOCKED));
return;
}
...
}
Which saves one load in some cases... not sure it's worth it though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists