mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 02/10] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:25:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274135154-24082-3-git-send-email-walken@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1274135154-24082-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>

This is in preparation to later changes in the series.

In __rwsem_do_wake(), the first queued waiter is checked first in order
to determine whether it's a writer or a reader. The code paths diverge
at this point. The code that checks and incremetns the rwsem active count
is duplicated on both sides - the point is that later changes in the
series will be able to independently modify both sides.

Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
---
 lib/rwsem.c |   54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index ceba8e2..874c0c1 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct rwsem_waiter {
  * - if we come here from up_xxxx(), then:
  *   - the 'active part' of count (&0x0000ffff) reached 0 (but may have changed)
  *   - the 'waiting part' of count (&0xffff0000) is -ve (and will still be so)
- *   - there must be someone on the queue
+ * - there must be someone on the queue
  * - the spinlock must be held by the caller
  * - woken process blocks are discarded from the list after having task zeroed
  * - writers are only woken if downgrading is false
@@ -54,27 +54,24 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
 	struct list_head *next;
 	signed long oldcount, woken, loop;
 
+	waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
+	if (!(waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE))
+		goto readers_only;
+
 	if (downgrading)
-		goto dont_wake_writers;
+		goto out;
 
-	/* if we came through an up_xxxx() call, we only only wake someone up
-	 * if we can transition the active part of the count from 0 -> 1
+	/* There's a writer at the front of the queue - try to grant it the
+	 * write lock.  However, we only wake this writer if we can transition
+	 * the active part of the count from 0 -> 1
 	 */
  try_again:
 	oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem)
 						- RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS;
 	if (oldcount & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
+		/* Someone grabbed the sem already */
 		goto undo;
 
-	waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
-
-	/* try to grant a single write lock if there's a writer at the front
-	 * of the queue - note we leave the 'active part' of the count
-	 * incremented by 1 and the waiting part incremented by 0x00010000
-	 */
-	if (!(waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE))
-		goto readers_only;
-
 	/* We must be careful not to touch 'waiter' after we set ->task = NULL.
 	 * It is an allocated on the waiter's stack and may become invalid at
 	 * any time after that point (due to a wakeup from another source).
@@ -87,18 +84,25 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
 	put_task_struct(tsk);
 	goto out;
 
-	/* don't want to wake any writers */
- dont_wake_writers:
-	waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
-	if (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
-		goto out;
+ readers_only:
+	if (!downgrading) {
+
+		/* if we came through an up_xxxx() call, we only only wake
+		 * someone up if we can transition the active part of the
+		 * count from 0 -> 1
+		 */
+ try_again_read:
+		oldcount = rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem)
+							- RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS;
+		if (oldcount & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
+			/* Someone grabbed the sem already */
+			goto undo_read;
+	}
 
-	/* grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
-	 * of the queue
-	 * - note we increment the 'active part' of the count by the number of
-	 *   readers before waking any processes up
+	/* Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
+	 * of the queue.  Note we increment the 'active part' of the count by
+	 * the number of readers before waking any processes up.
 	 */
- readers_only:
 	woken = 0;
 	do {
 		woken++;
@@ -142,6 +146,10 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int downgrading)
 	if (rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
 		goto out;
 	goto try_again;
+ undo_read:
+	if (rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
+		goto out;
+	goto try_again_read;
 }
 
 /*
-- 
1.7.0.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-05-17 22:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-17 22:25 [PATCH 00/10] V3: rwsem changes + down_read_critical() proposal Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86 rwsem: minor cleanups Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 03/10] rwsem: lighter active count checks when waking up readers Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 04/10] rwsem: let RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS represent any number of waiting threads Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 05/10] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 06/10] rwsem: smaller wrappers around rwsem_down_failed_common Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 07/10] generic rwsem: implement down_read_critical() / up_read_critical() Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:44   ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-17 23:13     ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 23:20       ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-19 13:21       ` David Howells
2010-05-19 23:47         ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-21  3:35         ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 08/10] rwsem: down_read_critical infrastructure support Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86 rwsem: down_read_critical implementation Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-17 22:25 ` [PATCH 10/10] Use down_read_critical() for /sys/<pid>/exe and /sys/<pid>/maps files Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-19 11:47 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86 rwsem: minor cleanups David Howells
2010-05-20 21:37   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-19 12:04 ` [PATCH 02/10] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers David Howells
2010-05-20 21:48   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-19 12:25 ` [PATCH 03/10] rwsem: lighter active count checks when waking up readers David Howells
2010-05-20 22:33   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-21  8:06   ` David Howells
2010-05-19 12:33 ` [PATCH 04/10] rwsem: let RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS represent any number of waiting threads David Howells
2010-05-19 12:44 ` [PATCH 05/10] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock David Howells
2010-05-19 12:51 ` [PATCH 06/10] rwsem: smaller wrappers around rwsem_down_failed_common David Howells
2010-05-19 13:34 ` [PATCH 08/10] rwsem: down_read_critical infrastructure support David Howells
2010-05-20 23:30   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-21  8:03   ` David Howells
2010-05-19 14:36 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86 rwsem: down_read_critical implementation David Howells
2010-05-19 15:21 ` [PATCH 10/10] Use down_read_critical() for /sys/<pid>/exe and /sys/<pid>/maps files David Howells
2010-05-21  2:44   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-22  1:49   ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-25  9:42   ` David Howells
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-05-14 12:39 [PATCH 00/10] V2: rwsem changes + down_read_unfair() proposal Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-14 12:39 ` [PATCH 02/10] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers Michel Lespinasse

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=1274135154-24082-3-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