From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754508AbbAaJ3g (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 04:29:36 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:32997 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754141AbbAaJ3c (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 31 Jan 2015 04:29:32 -0500
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 10:29:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] locking/rwsem: Avoid deceiving lock spinners
Message-ID: <20150131092921.GB32343@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1422609267-15102-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <1422609267-15102-5-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1422609267-15102-5-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:14:26AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> @@ -337,21 +337,30 @@ static inline bool owner_running(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>  static noinline
>  bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct task_struct *owner)
>  {
> +	long count;
> +
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
> +		/* abort spinning when need_resched */
> +		if (need_resched()) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			return false;
> +		}
>  
>  		cpu_relax_lowlatency();
>  	}
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
> +	if (READ_ONCE(sem->owner))
> +		return true; /* new owner, continue spinning */
> +

Same concern as Tim; also the mutex code seems to terminate the spin
when owner changes. And I think we want to have writers behave similar
to mutexes, no?

Does it make sense to change things to allow owner changes from NULL,
but not to NULL?

>  	/*
> +	 * When the owner is not set, the lock could be free or
> +	 * held by readers. Check the counter to verify the
> +	 * state.
>  	 */
> -	return sem->owner == NULL;
> +	count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
> +	return (count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS);
>  }