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>
Subject: [PATCH 05/11] rwsem: let RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS represent any number of waiting threads
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 13:31:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274733081-4623-6-git-send-email-walken@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1274733081-4623-1-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 to indicate that
the wait list is non-empty.
This has a few nice properties which will be used in following changes:
- when the spinlock 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>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---
lib/rwsem.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index 94f2d7a..a3e68bf 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
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))
@@ -73,9 +73,12 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
* write lock. However, we only wake this writer 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;
+
try_again_write:
- 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_write;
@@ -128,13 +131,15 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
} while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ);
- loop = woken;
- woken *= RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS - RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS;
+ if (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ)
+ /* hit end of list above */
+ adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
- rwsem_atomic_add(woken, sem);
+ rwsem_atomic_add(adjustment, sem);
next = sem->wait_list.next;
- for (; loop > 0; loop--) {
+ for (loop = woken; loop > 0; loop--) {
waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
next = waiter->list.next;
tsk = waiter->task;
@@ -153,7 +158,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
/* undo the change to the active count, but check for a transition
* 1->0 */
undo_write:
- if (rwsem_atomic_update(-RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
+ if (rwsem_atomic_update(-adjustment, sem) & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)
goto out;
goto try_again_write;
}
@@ -175,6 +180,8 @@ 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 locking */
@@ -208,8 +215,7 @@ 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;
}
@@ -222,7 +228,7 @@ 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:[~2010-05-24 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-24 20:31 [PATCH 00/11] V4: rwsem changes + down_read_critical() proposal Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 01/11] x86 rwsem: stay on fast path when count>0 in __up_write() Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 02/11] x86 rwsem: minor cleanups Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 03/11] rwsem: fully separate code pathes to wake writers vs readers Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 04/11] rwsem: lighter active count checks when waking up readers Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:49 ` Daniel Walker
2010-05-24 20:31 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 06/11] rwsem: wake queued readers when writer blocks on active read lock Michel Lespinasse
2010-08-12 1:24 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-12 5:02 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-08-12 5:09 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-08-12 15:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-08-12 16:24 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-12 22:23 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-13 16:09 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-13 21:19 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-13 23:38 ` Tony Luck
2010-08-13 23:48 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-08-12 16:22 ` Tony Luck
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 07/11] rwsem: smaller wrappers around rwsem_down_failed_common Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 08/11] generic rwsem: implement down_read_critical() / up_read_critical() Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 09/11] rwsem: down_read_critical infrastructure support Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86 rwsem: down_read_critical implementation Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 20:31 ` [PATCH 11/11] Use down_read_critical() for /proc/<pid>/exe and /proc/<pid>/maps files Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-24 21:12 ` Daniel Walker
2010-05-27 14:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-05-25 8:47 ` [PATCH 00/11] V4: rwsem changes + down_read_critical() proposal Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-25 9:12 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-25 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-26 1:23 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-05-27 11:02 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-27 11:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-27 10:59 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-27 11:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-27 11:47 ` Michel Lespinasse
2010-05-25 15:16 ` Linus Torvalds
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=1274733081-4623-6-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
Powered by JetHome