From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH 03/12] rwsem: let RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS represent any number of waiting threads
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:20:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1273634462-2672-4-git-send-email-walken@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1273634462-2672-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
Previously each waiting thread added a bias of RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS. With this
change, the bias is added only once when the wait list is non-empty.
This has a few nice properties which will be used in following changes:
- when the mutex is held and the waiter list is known to be non-empty,
count < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS <=> there is an active writer on that sem
- count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS <=> there are waiting threads and no
active readers/writers on that sem
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
---
lib/rwsem.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index caee9b7..0fb6e38 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk;
struct list_head *next;
- signed long oldcount, woken, loop;
+ signed long oldcount, woken, loop, adjustment;
waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
if (!(waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE))
@@ -68,9 +68,12 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
* write lock. However, we only only wake someone up
* if we can transition the active part of the count from 0 -> 1
*/
+ adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
+ if (waiter->list.next == &sem->wait_list)
+ adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+
retry_writer:
- oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem)
- - RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS;
+ oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem) - adjustment;
if (oldcount & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
/* Someone grabbed the sem already */
goto undo_writer;
@@ -106,7 +109,10 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
} while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ);
loop = woken;
- woken *= RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS - RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ woken *= RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
+ if (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ)
+ /* hit end of list above */
+ woken -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
retry_readers:
oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(woken, sem) - woken;
@@ -133,7 +139,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
/* undo the change to count, but check for a transition 1->0 */
undo_writer:
- if (rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
+ if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
goto out;
goto retry_writer;
@@ -160,6 +166,8 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
waiter->task = tsk;
get_task_struct(tsk);
+ if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
+ adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &sem->wait_list);
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively read-locking */
@@ -193,8 +201,7 @@ rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
waiter.flags = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ;
- rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, &waiter,
- RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS - RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS);
+ rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, &waiter, -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS);
return sem;
}
@@ -207,7 +214,7 @@ rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
waiter.flags = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
- rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, &waiter, -RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS);
+ rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, &waiter, -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS);
return sem;
}
--
1.7.0.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-12 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-12 3:20 [PATCH 00/12] rwsem changes + down_read_unfair() proposal Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 01/12] rwsem: test for no active locks in __rwsem_do_wake undo code Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 02/12] rwsem: use single atomic update for sem count when waking up readers Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 04/12] rwsem: consistently use adjustment variable Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 05/12] x86 rwsem: take advantage of new RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS semantics Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 06/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when other readers are active Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 07/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 08/12] rwsem: smaller wrappers around rwsem_down_failed_common Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:20 ` [PATCH 09/12] generic rwsem: implement down_read_unfair Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:21 ` [PATCH 10/12] rwsem: down_read_unfair infrastructure support Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:21 ` [PATCH 11/12] x86 rwsem: down_read_unfair implementation Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 3:21 ` [PATCH 12/12] Use down_read_unfair() for /sys/<pid>/exe and /sys/<pid>/maps files Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 22:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-12 23:35 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-13 0:32 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-12 10:39 ` [PATCH 01/12] rwsem: test for no active locks in __rwsem_do_wake undo code David Howells
2010-05-12 11:01 ` [PATCH 02/12] rwsem: use single atomic update for sem count when waking up readers David Howells
2010-05-13 0:54 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 11:36 ` David Howells
2010-05-12 11:45 ` [PATCH 04/12] rwsem: consistently use adjustment variable David Howells
2010-05-13 1:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 12:10 ` [PATCH 05/12] x86 rwsem: take advantage of new RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS semantics David Howells
2010-05-12 12:22 ` [PATCH 06/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when other readers are active David Howells
2010-05-13 2:39 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-13 5:41 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 12:33 ` [PATCH 07/12] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock David Howells
2010-05-12 12:36 ` [PATCH 08/12] rwsem: smaller wrappers around rwsem_down_failed_common David Howells
2010-05-12 12:42 ` David Howells
2010-05-13 2:54 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-12 12:46 ` [PATCH 09/12] generic rwsem: implement down_read_unfair David Howells
2010-05-12 13:08 ` [PATCH 11/12] x86 rwsem: down_read_unfair implementation David Howells
2010-05-12 13:10 ` [PATCH 12/12] Use down_read_unfair() for /sys/<pid>/exe and /sys/<pid>/maps files David Howells
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=1273634462-2672-4-git-send-email-walken@google.com \
--to=walken@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghan@google.com \
/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
Powered by JetHome