lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent
On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 10:38:57PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/12/21 07:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Argh, rwsem_mark_wake() doesn't clear HANDOFF when list_empty(), and
> > write_slowpath() is *far* too clever about all of this.
> rwsem_mark_wake() does clear the HANDOFF flag if it was set.

Argh, yeah, I got confused by the whole !woken case, but that case won't
ever hit list_empty() either. Perhaps that stuff could use a bit of a
reflow too.


> > > @@ -1098,7 +1110,7 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
> > > * In this case, we attempt to acquire the lock again
> > > * without sleeping.
> > > */
> > > - if (wstate == WRITER_HANDOFF) {
> > > + if (waiter.handoff_set) {
> > I'm thinking this wants to be something like:
> >
> > if (rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == &waiter && waiter.handoff_set) {
> handoff_set flag is only set when the waiter becomes the first.

Yes, but a random waiter can wake up and see it be set and also start
spinning.

> >
> > > enum owner_state owner_state;
> > > preempt_disable();

> > @@ -575,6 +610,11 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(
> > return false;
> > }
> > + /*
> > + * Have rwsem_try_write_lock() fully imply rwsem_del_waiter() on
> > + * success.
> > + */
> > + list_del(&waiter->list);
> > rwsem_set_owner(sem);
> > return true;
> > }

> > @@ -1128,16 +1153,14 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_sema
> > raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > }
> > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > - list_del(&waiter.list);
> +    rwsem_del_waiter(sem, &waiters); ?

I tried that, but then we get an extra atomic in this path. As is I made
try_write_lock() do the full del_waiter, see the hunk above.

> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock);
> > -
> > - return ret;
> > + return sem;
> > out_nolock:
> > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > - rwsem_out_nolock_clear_flags(sem, &waiter);
> > + rwsem_del_waiter(sem, &waiter);
> > if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
> > rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> >
> Sorry for the late reply as I was busy on other works.
>
> I like the idea. I will incorporate in a new patch tomorrow.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-15 17:04    [W:0.057 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site