From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: longman@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 18:11:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230224101129.3020-1-hdanton@sina.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230223123319.487908155@infradead.org>
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:26:45 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> +static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> + struct rwsem_waiter *waiter,
> + struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
> +{
> + struct rwsem_waiter *first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
> + long count, new;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
> +
> + count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
> + do {
> + bool has_handoff = !!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> +
> + if (has_handoff) {
> + /*
> + * Honor handoff bit and yield only when the first
> + * waiter is the one that set it. Otherwisee, we
> + * still try to acquire the rwsem.
> + */
> + if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
> + return;
Given that HANDOFF disables all spinning and stealing in 2/6, what sense
made by still trying to acquire the rwsem? The answer is perhaps it is called
at wake time.
> + }
> +
> + new = count;
> +
> + if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
If it is only called at wake time, the chance for a transient RWSEM_READER_BIAS
to ruin the wakeup is not zero.
> + /*
> + * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit
> + * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
> + * for too long.
> + */
> + if (has_handoff || (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
> + !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
> + return;
> +
> + new |= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
> + } else {
> + new |= RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED;
> + new &= ~RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
> +
> + if (list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> + new &= ~RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS;
> + }
> + } while (!atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, &count, new));
> +
> + /*
> + * We have either acquired the lock with handoff bit cleared or set
> + * the handoff bit. Only the first waiter can have its handoff_set
> + * set here to enable optimistic spinning in slowpath loop.
> + */
> + if (new & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) {
> + first->handoff_set = true;
> + lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_handoff);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Have rwsem_writer_wake() fully imply rwsem_del_waiter() on
> + * success.
> + */
> + list_del(&waiter->list);
> + rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> + rwsem_waiter_wake(waiter, wake_q);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * handle the lock release when processes blocked on it that can now run
> * - if we come here from up_xxxx(), then the RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS bit must
> @@ -424,23 +518,12 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
> */
> waiter = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
>
> - if (waiter->type != RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
> - goto wake_readers;
> -
> - if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
> - /*
> - * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
> - * Until the task is actually later awoken later by
> - * the caller, other writers are able to steal it.
> - * Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
> - * will notice the queued writer.
> - */
> - wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
> - lockevent_inc(rwsem_wake_writer);
> + if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
> + if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY)
> + rwsem_writer_wake(sem, waiter, wake_q);
> + return;
next parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-24 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20230223122642.491637862@infradead.org>
[not found] ` <20230223123319.487908155@infradead.org>
2023-02-24 10:11 ` Hillf Danton [this message]
[not found] ` <20230223123319.548254615@infradead.org>
2023-02-25 10:15 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/rwsem: Split out rwsem_reader_wake() 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=20230224101129.3020-1-hdanton@sina.com \
--to=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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