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
next prev 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