All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:01:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1410904867.2447.9.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <541898C7.6070508@hurleysoftware.com>

On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 16:08 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On 09/16/2014 03:01 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> > Commit 9b0fc9c09f1b checks for if there are known active lockers in
> > order to avoid write trylocking using expensive cmpxchg() when it
> > likely wouldn't get the lock.
> > 
> > However, a subsequent patch was added such that we directly check for
> > sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS right before trying that cmpxchg().
> > Thus, commit 9b0fc9c09f1b now just adds extra overhead. This patch
> > deletes it.
> 
> It would be better to just not reload sem->count, and check the parameter
> count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS instead. The count parameter is a very recent
> load of sem->count (one of which is the latest exclusive read from an
> atomic operation), so likely to be just as accurate as a reload of
> sem->count without causing more cache line contention.

Hi Peter and Tim,

Yes, I also agree. I will send out a new patch with this update.

Thanks,
Jason


      parent reply	other threads:[~2014-09-16 22:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-16 19:01 [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock Jason Low
2014-09-16 20:08 ` Peter Hurley
2014-09-16 20:51   ` Tim Chen
2014-09-16 22:01   ` Jason Low [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=1410904867.2447.9.camel@j-VirtualBox \
    --to=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.