From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: dont wake up wwaiter in case of lock holder
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 16:18:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02f50037-46ce-ec08-63cb-e855694e69a5@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220326134059.4082-1-hdanton@sina.com>
On 26.03.22 14:40, Hillf Danton wrote:
> In the slowpath of down for write, we bail out in case of signal received and
> try to wake up any pending waiter but it makes no sense to wake up a write
> waiter given any lock holder, either write or read.
But is handling this better really worth additional code and runtime
checks? IOW, does this happen often enough that we actually care about
optimizing this? I have no idea :)
>
> The RFC is do nothing for wwaiter if any lock holder present - they will fill
> their duty at lock release time.
>
> Only for thoughts now.
>
> Hillf
>
> --- x/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ y/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -418,6 +418,8 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
> waiter = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
>
> if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
> + if (RWSEM_LOCK_MASK & atomic_long_read(&sem->count))
> + return;
> if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
> /*
> * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
> --
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-28 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-26 13:40 Hillf Danton
2022-03-28 14:18 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2022-03-28 15:11 ` Waiman Long
2022-04-01 12:15 ` Hillf Danton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=02f50037-46ce-ec08-63cb-e855694e69a5@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox