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 05/10] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:25:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274135154-24082-6-git-send-email-walken@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1274135154-24082-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
This change addresses the following situation:
- Thread A acquires the rwsem for read
- Thread B tries to acquire the rwsem for write, notices there is already
an active owner for the rwsem.
- Thread C tries to acquire the rwsem for read, notices that thread B already
tried to acquire it.
- Thread C grabs the spinlock and queues itself on the wait queue.
- Thread B grabs the spinlock and queues itself behind C. At this point A is
the only remaining active owner on the rwsem.
In this situation thread B could notice that it was the last active writer
on the rwsem, and decide to wake C to let it proceed in parallel with A
since they both only want the rwsem for read.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
---
lib/rwsem.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index b2dde5a..89cd8b3 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
goto readers_only;
if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED)
+ /* Another active reader was observed, so wakeup is not
+ * likely to succeed. Save the atomic op.
+ */
goto out;
/* There's a writer at the front of the queue - try to grant it the
@@ -98,7 +101,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
readers_only:
/* If we come here from up_xxxx(), another thread might have reached
* rwsem_down_failed_common() before we acquired the spinlock and
- * woken up an active locker. We prefer to check for this first in
+ * woken up an active writer. We prefer to check for this first in
* order to not spend too much time with the spinlock held if we're
* not going to be able to wake up readers in the end.
*
@@ -111,8 +114,8 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
* count adjustment pretty soon.
*/
if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY &&
- rwsem_atomic_update(0, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
- /* Someone grabbed the sem already */
+ rwsem_atomic_update(0, sem) < RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+ /* Someone grabbed the sem for write already */
goto out;
/* Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
@@ -187,9 +190,17 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
- /* if there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up */
- if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK))
+ /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
+ *
+ * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
+ * were already threads queued before us, and there are no active
+ * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
+ * locks that were queued ahead of us. */
+ if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
+ else if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
+ adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
--
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 ` [PATCH 02/10] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers Michel Lespinasse
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 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
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 05/10] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock 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=1274135154-24082-6-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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®