Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Revert "locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning"

[Bongkyu Kim <bongkyu7.kim@samsung.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1598 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 9/4/23 11:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 10:07:03AM +0900, Bongkyu Kim wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 617f3ef95177840c77f59c2aec1029d27d5547d6.
> > > 
> > > In mobile environment, reader optimistic spinning is still useful
> > > because there're not many readers. In my test result at android device,
> > > it improves application startup time about 3.8%
> > > App startup time is most important factor for android user expriences.
> > > So, re-enable reader optimistic spinning by this commit. And,
> > > the later patch will make it optional feature by cmdline.
> > I'm not seeing any mention on how this interacts with all the rwsem work
> > that has been done since that commit, like the handoff rework.
> > 
> > Why is a straight revert a sane thing at this point?
> 
> I also agree that a revert is not the best way to reintroduce the feature.
> It should document the reason why reader optimistic spinning is not the
> default as discussed in commit 617f3ef9517 ("locking/rwsem: Remove reader
> optimistic spinning") and under what condition should reader optimistic
> spinning can be turned back on.
> 
> Besides, I now think we may not really need 2 separate nonspinnable bits. We
> can go with one that is set by writer timing out when spinning on reader.
> 
> Cheers,
> Longman

Should I modify like the below?
- Title to "locking/rwsem: Reintroduce reader optimistic spinning"
- Add more document like Longman's comment
- Reconsidering about 2 separate nonspinnable bits to one

Thanks,
Bongkyu

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]