lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already set
From

On 11/11/21 16:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 11/11/21 16:01, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 11/11/21 15:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:36:52PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -434,6 +430,7 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct
>>>>> rw_semaphore *sem,
>>>>>               if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) &&
>>>>>                   time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
>>>>>                   adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
>>>>> +                waiter->handoff_set = true;
>>>>>                   lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
>>>>>               }
>>>> Do we really need this flag? Wouldn't it be the same as waiter-is-first
>>>> AND sem-has-handoff ?
>>> That is true. The only downside is that we have to read the count first
>>> in rwsem_out_nolock_clear_flags(). Since this is not a fast path, it
>>> should be OK to do that.
>> I just realize that I may still need this flag for writer to determine if it
>> should spin after failing to acquire the lock. Or I will have to do extra
>> read of count value in the loop. I don't need to use it for writer now.
> Maybe it's too late here, but afaict this is right after failing
> try_write_lock(), which will have done at least that load you're
> interested in, no?
>
> Simply have try_write_lock() update &count or something.

You are right. I have actually decided to do an extra read after second
thought.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-11 22:56    [W:0.086 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site