lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] locking/rwlocks: do not starve writers
From
On 6/17/22 08:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:10:39AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
>> @@ -23,16 +23,6 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>> /*
>> * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting
>> */
>> - 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));
>> - return;
>> - }
>> atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
>>
>> trace_contention_begin(lock, LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_READ);
> This is known to break tasklist_lock.
>
We certainly can't break the current usage of tasklist_lock.

I am aware of this problem with networking code and is thinking about
either relaxing the check to exclude softirq or provide a
read_lock_unfair() variant for networking use. I think tasklist_lock
isn't taken from softirq context, but I may be wrong. Providing a
read_lock_unfair() will require quite a bit of work in the supporting
infrastructure as well.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-17 16:44    [W:1.416 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site