From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Ray <mark.ray@hpe.com>,
Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>,
Scott Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Take read lock immediate if empty queue with no writer
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 14:32:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c575a0ab-419b-c0ea-f550-7c5daebbba25@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180713100257.GE32020@arm.com>
On 07/13/2018 06:02 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 02:31:30PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> It was found that a constant stream of readers might cause the count to
>> go negative most of the time after an initial trigger by a writer even
>> if no writer was present afterward. As a result, most of the readers
>> would have to go through the slowpath reducing their performance.
>>
>> To avoid that from happening, an additional check is added to detect
>> the special case that the reader in the critical section is the only
>> one in the wait queue and no writer is present. When that happens, it
>> can just have the lock and return immediately without further action.
>> Other incoming readers won't see a waiter is present and be forced
>> into the slowpath.
>>
>> After the list_empty() calls, the CPU should have the lock cacheline
>> anyway, so an additional semaphore count check shouldn't have any
>> performance impact.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> This looks ok to me, but it would be nice to include some performance
> figures in the commit log. Do you have any? Phrases such as "shouldn't have
> any performance impact" and "probably generate better code" don't fill me
> with good feelings ;)
>
> Will
I just got the customer testing results back. I had posted a v2 patch
with the customer data. I also remove wordings that may cause confusion.
Cheers,
Longman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-13 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-10 18:31 Waiman Long
2018-07-13 10:02 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-13 18:32 ` 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=c575a0ab-419b-c0ea-f550-7c5daebbba25@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=jmario@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.ray@hpe.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hpe.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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®