From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 12:58:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/tJZXrDYpvdJKMh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bf2948c4-dd6a-1cf6-16b5-39e5e17ef72a@redhat.com>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 04:38:08PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > +static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
> > + struct rwsem_waiter *waiter,
> > + struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
> > +{
> > + struct rwsem_waiter *first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
> > + long count, new;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
> > +
> > + count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
> > + do {
> > + bool has_handoff = !!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF);
> > +
> > + if (has_handoff) {
> > + /*
> > + * Honor handoff bit and yield only when the first
> > + * waiter is the one that set it. Otherwisee, we
> > + * still try to acquire the rwsem.
> > + */
> > + if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
> > + return;
> > + }
> This "if" statement if for a non-first waiter that somehow got woken up to
> have a chance to steal the lock. Now the handoff is done in the wake side
> for the first waiter, this "if" statement is not applicable and can be
> removed.
Yeah, that can be cleaned up, something like the below. But that doesn't
appear to be the cause of issues.
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -427,25 +427,12 @@ static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter,
struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
{
- struct rwsem_waiter *first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
long count, new;
lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
do {
- bool has_handoff = !!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF);
-
- if (has_handoff) {
- /*
- * Honor handoff bit and yield only when the first
- * waiter is the one that set it. Otherwisee, we
- * still try to acquire the rwsem.
- */
- if (first->handoff_set && (waiter != first))
- return;
- }
-
new = count;
if (count & RWSEM_LOCK_MASK) {
@@ -454,8 +441,9 @@ static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_
* if it is an RT task or wait in the wait queue
* for too long.
*/
- if (has_handoff || (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
- !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
+ if ((count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) ||
+ (!rt_task(waiter->task) &&
+ !time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)))
return;
new |= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
@@ -474,7 +462,7 @@ static void rwsem_writer_wake(struct rw_
* set here to enable optimistic spinning in slowpath loop.
*/
if (new & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) {
- first->handoff_set = true;
+ waiter->handoff_set = true;
lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_handoff);
return;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-26 11:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-23 12:26 [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 1/6] locking/rwsem: Minor code refactoring in rwsem_mark_wake() Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enforce queueing when HANDOFF Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 21:38 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-26 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 21:31 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27 0:22 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-27 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27 20:16 ` Waiman Long
2023-03-20 8:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-20 17:36 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/rwsem: Split out rwsem_reader_wake() Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/6] locking/rwsem: Unify wait loop Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 19:31 ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-24 1:33 ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-26 12:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 18:22 ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-23 22:45 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 6/6] locking/rwsem: Use the force Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-24 1:19 ` [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Waiman Long
2023-02-24 11:55 ` Jiri Wiesner
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=Y/tJZXrDYpvdJKMh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--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®