mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:49:10 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911301443110.2872@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911302328350.24119@localhost.localdomain>



On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> I'm aware of that. The number of places where we read_lock
> tasklist_lock is 79 in 36 files right now. That's not a horrible task
> to go through them one by one and do a case by case conversion with a
> proper changelog. That would only leave the write_lock sites. 

The write_lock sites should be fine, since just changing them to a 
spinlock should be 100% semantically equivalent - except for the lack of 
interrupt disable. And the lack of interrupt disable will result in a nice 
big deadlock if some interrupt really does take the spinlock, which is 
much easier to debug than a subtle race that would get the wrong read 
value.

> We can then either do the rw_lock to spin_lock conversion or keep the
> rw_lock which has no readers anymore and behaves like a spinlock for a
> transition time so reverts of one of the read_lock -> rcu patches
> could be done to debug stuff.

So as per the above, I wouldn't worry about the write lockers. Might as 
well change it to a spinlock, since that's what it will act as. It's not 
as if there is any chance that the spinlock code is subtly buggy.

So the only reason to keep it as a rwlock would be if you decide to do the 
read-locked cases one by one, and don't end up with all of them converted. 
Which is a reasonable strategy too, of course. We don't _have_ to convert 
them all - if the main problem is some starvation issue, it's sufficient 
to convert just the main read-lock cases so that writers never get 
starved.

But converting it all would be nice, because that whole

	write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);

to

	spin_lock(&tasklist_lock);

conversion would likely be a measurable performance win. Both because 
spinlocks are fundamentally faster (no atomic on unlock), and because you 
get rid of the irq disable/enable. But in order to get there, you'd have 
to convert _all_ the read-lockers, so you'd miss the opportunity to only 
convert the easy cases.

			Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-30 22:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-23 14:54 Nick Piggin
2009-11-24 20:19 ` David Miller
2009-11-25  6:52   ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-25  8:49   ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-25  8:56     ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-24 20:47 ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-25  6:54   ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-25  8:48     ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-25 13:09       ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-11-28  2:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-28 11:15   ` Andi Kleen
2009-11-28 15:20     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-28 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-29 18:51   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-30  7:57     ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-30  7:55   ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-30 15:22     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 15:40       ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-30 16:07         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 16:17           ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-30 16:39           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-30 17:05             ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 17:13               ` Nick Piggin
2009-11-30 17:18                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-12-01 17:03                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2009-12-01 17:15                     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 18:29                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-30 16:20     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-11-30 10:00   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-11-30 15:52     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 17:46       ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-30 21:12         ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-11-30 21:27           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-30 22:02             ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-11-30 22:11               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-30 22:37                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-11-30 22:49                   ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-12-01 17:37                     ` [PATCH] audit: Call tty_audit_push_task() outside preempt disabled region Thomas Gleixner
2009-12-01 18:22                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-12-01 19:53                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-12-06  3:12                     ` [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-07 18:18                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-07 22:24                         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-07 22:35                           ` Andi Kleen
2009-12-07 23:19                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-08  1:39                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-08  2:11                                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-08  2:37                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-07 18:32                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-12-07 20:38                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-09 15:55                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-12-07 22:10                         ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-09 15:37                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-12-10  3:36                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-10  6:22                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-10 10:31                               ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-12-10 16:41                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-01 19:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers

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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0911301443110.2872@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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®