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
next prev parent 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®