From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 1/3] locking: remove rcu_read_lock/unlock as we already disabled preemption
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 21:41:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211013134154.1085649-2-yanfei.xu@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211013134154.1085649-1-yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
preempt_disable/enable() is equal to RCU read-side crital section, and
the spinning codes in mutex and rwsem could ensure that the preemption
is disabled. So let's remove the unnecessary rcu_read_lock/unlock for
saving some cycles in hot codes.
Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 14 +++++++++-----
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 2fede72b6af5..db1913611192 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -351,13 +351,16 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
{
bool ret = true;
- rcu_read_lock();
+ lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
+
while (__mutex_owner(lock) == owner) {
/*
* Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
- * checking lock->owner still matches owner. If that fails,
- * owner might point to freed memory. If it still matches,
- * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
+ * checking lock->owner still matches owner. And we already
+ * disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
+ * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the
+ * task_strcut structure won't go away during the spinning
+ * period
*/
barrier();
@@ -377,7 +380,6 @@ bool mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner,
cpu_relax();
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
return ret;
}
@@ -390,19 +392,25 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock)
struct task_struct *owner;
int retval = 1;
+ lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
+
if (need_resched())
return 0;
- rcu_read_lock();
+ /*
+ * We already disabled preemption which is equal to the RCU read-side
+ * crital section in optimistic spinning code. Thus the task_strcut
+ * structure won't go away during the spinning period.
+ */
owner = __mutex_owner(lock);
/*
* As lock holder preemption issue, we both skip spinning if task is not
* on cpu or its cpu is preempted
*/
+
if (owner)
retval = owner->on_cpu && !vcpu_is_preempted(task_cpu(owner));
- rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* If lock->owner is not set, the mutex has been released. Return true
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
index 000e8d5a2884..7b5af452ace2 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -617,7 +617,10 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
}
preempt_disable();
- rcu_read_lock();
+ /*
+ * Disable preemption is equal to the RCU read-side crital section,
+ * thus the task_strcut structure won't go away.
+ */
owner = rwsem_owner_flags(sem, &flags);
/*
* Don't check the read-owner as the entry may be stale.
@@ -625,7 +628,6 @@ static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
if ((flags & RWSEM_NONSPINNABLE) ||
(owner && !(flags & RWSEM_READER_OWNED) && !owner_on_cpu(owner)))
ret = false;
- rcu_read_unlock();
preempt_enable();
lockevent_cond_inc(rwsem_opt_fail, !ret);
@@ -670,12 +672,13 @@ rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
unsigned long flags, new_flags;
enum owner_state state;
+ lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
+
owner = rwsem_owner_flags(sem, &flags);
state = rwsem_owner_state(owner, flags);
if (state != OWNER_WRITER)
return state;
- rcu_read_lock();
for (;;) {
/*
* When a waiting writer set the handoff flag, it may spin
@@ -693,7 +696,9 @@ rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
* Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
* checking sem->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
* owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches,
- * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
+ * our spinning context already disabled preemption which is
+ * equal to RCU read-side crital section ensures the memory
+ * stays valid.
*/
barrier();
@@ -704,7 +709,6 @@ rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
cpu_relax();
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
return state;
}
--
2.27.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-13 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-13 13:41 [PATCH V2 0/3] misc patches for mutex and rwsem Yanfei Xu
2021-10-13 13:41 ` Yanfei Xu [this message]
2021-10-19 15:35 ` [tip: locking/core] locking: Remove rcu_read_{,un}lock() for preempt_{dis,en}able() tip-bot2 for Yanfei Xu
2021-10-13 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/rwsem: disable preemption for spinning region Yanfei Xu
2021-10-15 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-15 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-15 12:33 ` Xu, Yanfei
2021-10-19 15:35 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/rwsem: Disable " tip-bot2 for Yanfei Xu
2021-10-13 13:41 ` [PATCH V2 3/3] locking/rwsem: fix comments about reader optimistic lock stealing conditions Yanfei Xu
2021-10-19 15:35 ` [tip: locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix " tip-bot2 for Yanfei Xu
2021-10-13 21:08 ` [PATCH V2 0/3] misc patches for mutex and rwsem Waiman Long
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=20211013134154.1085649-2-yanfei.xu@windriver.com \
--to=yanfei.xu@windriver.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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®