[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689HEW=b5S93J27p+rBX-5m7jkW4FER=eHDCp7OgMaTWLPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:13:17 +0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sbw@....edu, tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
> I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
> a couple of questions.
>
> This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
> am trying to understand what I missed. See
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136196350213593
>From what I can see, my version used local_refcnt to count how many
reentrant locks are represented by the fastpath lglock spinlock; Lai's
version uses it to count how many reentrant locks are represented by
either the fastpath lglock spinlock or the global rwlock, with
FALLBACK_BASE being a bit thrown in so we can remember which of these
locks was acquired. My version would be slower if it needs to take the
slow path in a reentrant way, but I'm not sure it matters either :)
> Interrupt handler on CPU_1 does _read_lock() notices ->reader_refcnt != 0
> and simply does this_cpu_inc(), so reader_refcnt == FALLBACK_BASE + 1.
>
> Then irq does _read_unlock(), and
>
>> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
>> +{
>> + switch (__this_cpu_dec_return(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
>> + case 0:
>> + lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
>> + return;
>> + case FALLBACK_BASE:
>> + __this_cpu_sub(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);
>> + read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
>
> hits this case?
>
> Doesn't look right, but most probably I missed something.
Good catch. I think this is easily fixed by setting reader_refcn
directly to FALLBACK_BASE+1, instead of setting it to FALLBACK_BASE
and then incrementing it to FALLBACK_BASE+1.
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists