From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] locking/rwsem: Restore old write lock slow path behavior
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 23:45:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b0b7f01-c286-0650-9600-c66467569e93@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230328140259.GF4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 3/28/23 10:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 04:24:13PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> kernel/locking/rwsem.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 7bd26e64827a..cf9dc1e250e0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ rwsem_waiter_wake(struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
>> static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>> struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
>> {
>> + bool first = (rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter);
>> long count, new;
>>
>> lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
>> @@ -434,6 +435,9 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>> do {
>> new = count;
>>
>> + if (!first && (count & (RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF | RWSEM_LOCK_MASK)))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
>> /*
>> * A waiter (first or not) can set the handoff bit
> I couldn't immediately make sense of the above, and I think there's case
> where not-first would still want to set handoff you're missing.
It is possible to do that, but we need a minor change to make sure that
you set the handoff_set flag of the first waiter instead of the current
waiter which is what the current rwsem code is doing. Other than that, I
think the change is OK, though I need to take a further look into it
tomorrow as it is now late for me too.
Cheers,
longman
>
> After a few detours, I ended up with the below; does that make sense or
> did I just make a bigger mess? (entirely possible due to insufficient
> sleep etc..).
>
>
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -426,12 +426,27 @@ rwsem_waiter_wake(struct rwsem_waiter *w
> static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
> {
> + bool first = (rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter);
> long count, new;
>
> lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
>
> count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
> do {
> + /*
> + * first handoff
> + *
> + * 0 0 | take
> + * 0 1 | not take
> + * 1 0 | take
> + * 1 1 | take
> + *
> + */
> + bool handoff = count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
> +
> + if (!first && handoff)
> + return false;
> +
> new = count;
>
> if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
> @@ -440,7 +455,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(
> * if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
> * for too long.
> */
> - if ((count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) ||
> + if (handoff ||
> (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
> !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
> return false;
> @@ -501,11 +516,19 @@ static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_
> */
> list_del(&waiter->list);
> atomic_long_set(&sem->owner, (long)waiter->task);
> -
> - } else if (!rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, waiter))
> + rwsem_waiter_wake(waiter, wake_q);
> return;
> + }
>
> - rwsem_waiter_wake(waiter, wake_q);
> + /*
> + * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
> + *
> + * Until the task is actually awoken later by the caller, other writers
> + * are able to steal it. Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
> + * will notice the queued writer.
> + */
> + wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
> + lockevent_inc(rwsem_wake_writer);
> }
>
> static void rwsem_reader_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> @@ -1038,6 +1061,25 @@ rwsem_waiter_wait(struct rw_semaphore *s
> /* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s smp_store_release(). */
> break;
> }
> + if (!reader) {
> + /*
> + * If rwsem_writer_wake() did not take the lock, we must
> + * rwsem_try_write_lock() here.
> + */
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> + if (waiter->task && rwsem_try_write_lock(sem, waiter)) {
> + waiter->task = NULL;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> + break;
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +
> + if (waiter->handoff_set)
> + rwsem_spin_on_owner(sem);
> +
> + if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->task))
> + break;
> + }
> if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> if (waiter->task)
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-29 3:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-27 20:24 [PATCH v2 0/8] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] locking/rwsem: Minor code refactoring in rwsem_mark_wake() Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] locking/rwsem: Enforce queueing when HANDOFF Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] locking/rwsem: Simplify rwsem_writer_wake() Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] locking/rwsem: Split out rwsem_reader_wake() Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] locking/rwsem: Unify wait loop Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] locking/rwsem: Use the force Waiman Long
2023-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] locking/rwsem: Restore old write lock slow path behavior Waiman Long
2023-03-28 14:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-29 3:45 ` Waiman Long [this message]
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=8b0b7f01-c286-0650-9600-c66467569e93@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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®