lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] locking/qrwlock: Reduce cacheline contention for rwlocks used in interrupt context
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 03:21:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Even though qrwlock is supposed to be a fair lock, it does allow readers
> from interrupt context to spin on the lock until it can acquire it making
> it not as fair. This exception was added due to the requirement to allow
> recursive read lock in interrupt context. This can also be achieved by
> just ignoring the writer waiting bit without spinning on the lock.
>
> By making this change, we make qrwlock a bit more fair and eliminating
> the problem of cacheline bouncing for rwlocks that are used heavily in
> interrupt context, like the networking stack. This should also reduce
> the chance of lock starvation for those interrupt context rwlocks.

> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index 2e1600906c9f..d52d13e95600 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -18,21 +18,16 @@
> * queued_read_lock_slowpath - acquire read lock of a queued rwlock
> * @lock: Pointer to queued rwlock structure
> */
> -void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, int cnts)
> {
> /*
> - * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting
> + * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting.
> + * Readers in interrupt context can steal the lock immediately
> + * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet).
> */
> - if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
> - /*
> - * Readers in interrupt context will get the lock immediately
> - * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet),
> - * so spin with ACQUIRE semantics until the lock is available
> - * without waiting in the queue.
> - */
> - atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, !(VAL & _QW_LOCKED));
> + if (unlikely(!(cnts & _QW_LOCKED) && in_interrupt()))
> return;
> - }
> +
> atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
>
> trace_contention_begin(lock, LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_READ);

I'm confused; prior to this change:

CPU0 CPU1

write_lock_irq(&l)
read_lock(&l)
<INRQ>
read_lock(&l)
...

was not deadlock, but now it would AFAICT.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-11 10:32    [W:0.337 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site