[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHwmfauZihbexnSq9mEe3Yz0DxT=KwgBX7ATCr2QJp_pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:00:19 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:31 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue 17-01-23 10:28:40, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > > Then yes, that's a starvable lock. Preventing starvation on the mmap
> > > sem was the original motivation for making rwsems non-starvable, so
> > > changing that behaviour now seems like a bad idea. For efficiency, I'd
> > > suggest that a waiting writer set the top bit of the counter. That way,
> > > all new readers will back off without needing to check a second variable
> > > and old readers will know that they *may* need to do the wakeup when
> > > atomic_sub_return_release() is negative.
> > >
> > > (rwsem.c has a more complex bitfield, but I don't think we need to go
> > > that far; the important point is that the waiting writer indicates its
> > > presence in the count field so that readers can modify their behaviour)
> >
> > Got it. Ok, I think we can figure something out to check if there are
> > waiting write-lockers and prevent new readers from taking the lock.
>
> Reinventing locking primitives is a ticket to weird bugs. I would stick
> with the rwsem and deal with performance fallouts after it is clear that
> the core idea is generally acceptable and based on actual real life
> numbers. This whole thing is quite big enough that we do not have to go
> through "is this new synchronization primitive correct and behaving
> reasonably" exercise.
Point taken. That's one of the reasons I kept this patch separate.
I'll drop this last patch from the series for now. One correction
though, this will not be a performance fallout but memory consumption
fallout.
>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists