mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
	Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:28:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160511082853.GF16677@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160511072357.GC16677@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Wed 11-05-16 09:23:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-16 14:38:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> > However, at the time I was thinking that if we have:
> > 
> > 	reader (owner)
> > 	writer (pending)
> > 	reader (blocked on writer)
> > 
> > and writer would get cancelled, the up_read() would do a wakeup and kick
> > the blocked reader.
> > 
> > But yes, immediately kicking further pending waiters might be better.
> 
> OK, that makes sense. We shouldn't be waiting for the first reader to
> do up_read.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the wake up logic (I managed to
forget all the juicy details). I still do not see the correctness
issue with the current code so the following should be "just an
optimization". But as I've said I might be missing something here.

Does the following look correct/reasonable? This is absolutely untested
and more for a discussion:
---
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index df4dcb883b50..726620c97366 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -516,7 +516,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_write_failed);
 __visible struct rw_semaphore * __sched
 rwsem_down_write_failed_killable(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
 {
-	return __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem, TASK_KILLABLE);
+	struct rw_semaphore * ret;
+
+	ret = __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem, TASK_KILLABLE);
+	if (IS_ERR(ret)) {
+		long count;
+
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+		count = READ_ONCE(sem->count);
+
+		/*
+		 * If 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 so they
+		 * do not have to wait for up_read to wake up.
+		 */
+		if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
+			sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+	}
+
+	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_write_failed_killable);
 
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-11  8:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-01 11:04 [PATCH 0/11] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore v2 Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 01/11] locking, rwsem: get rid of __down_write_nested Michal Hocko
2016-04-02  0:28   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 02/11] locking, rwsem: drop explicit memory barriers Michal Hocko
2016-04-02  1:17   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-04-04  9:03     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-04  9:06       ` [PATCH 1/2] xtensa, rwsem: drop superfluous arch specific implementation Michal Hocko
2016-04-04  9:06         ` [PATCH 2/2] sh, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-06  9:26           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-06  9:50             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-04-06 10:27               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-04 10:23         ` [PATCH 1/2] xtensa, " Max Filippov
2016-04-06  9:06     ` [PATCH] sparc, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-04-02  4:41   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-04-04  9:17     ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-04  9:21       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-07  6:58       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-04-07  7:38         ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10 10:43   ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-05-10 11:53     ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-10 12:38       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-10 13:57         ` Tetsuo Handa
2016-05-11  7:23         ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-11  8:28           ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2016-05-11  8:44             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-11  9:04               ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-11  9:17                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-11  9:31                   ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-11  9:41                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-11 13:59                       ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-11 18:03                         ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-12 11:57                           ` [PATCH] locking, rwsem: Fix down_write_killable() Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-12 12:15                             ` [tip:locking/rwsem] locking/rwsem: " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-12 16:59                             ` [PATCH] locking, rwsem: " Michal Hocko
2016-05-15 20:57                             ` [tip:locking/rwsem] locking/rwsem: " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-12 12:12                           ` [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-12 12:19                             ` Michal Hocko
2016-05-12 13:58                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-12 19:42                               ` Waiman Long
2016-05-11  8:35           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-11  9:02             ` Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 04/11] alpha, rwsem: provide __down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 05/11] ia64, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 06/11] s390, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 07/11] sh, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 08/11] sparc, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 09/11] xtensa, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86, " Michal Hocko
2016-04-06 18:31   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-01 11:04 ` [PATCH 11/11] locking, rwsem: provide down_write_killable Michal Hocko
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-02-29 12:58 [PATCH 0/11] introduce down_write_killable for rw_semaphore Michal Hocko
2016-02-29 12:58 ` [PATCH 03/11] locking, rwsem: introduce basis for down_write_killable Michal Hocko
2016-03-30 13:25   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-31  8:33     ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-31  8:44       ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20160511082853.GF16677@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hpe.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chris@zankel.net \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.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®