From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, john.stultz@linaro.org,
dimitrysh@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Rework writer block/wake to not use wait-queues
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 18:13:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161205171352.GB13035@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161203021839.GB30078@linux-80c1.suse>
On 12/02, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> @@ -102,8 +103,13 @@ void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> */
> __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + writer = rcu_dereference(sem->writer);
> +
> /* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
> - wake_up(&sem->writer);
> + if (writer)
> + wake_up_process(writer);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
This needs a barrier between __this_cpu_dec() and rcu_dereference(), I think.
> @@ -159,8 +165,18 @@ void percpu_down_write(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> * will wait for them.
> */
>
> - /* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
> - wait_event(sem->writer, readers_active_check(sem));
> + WRITE_ONCE(sem->writer, current);
> + for (;;) {
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +
> + if (readers_active_check(sem))
> + break;
This looks fine, we can rely on set_current_state() which inserts a barrier
between WRITE_ONCE() and readers_active_check(). So we do not even need
WRITE_ONCE().
And the fact this needs the barriers and the comments makes me think again
you should add the new helpers.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-05 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-18 18:54 [PATCH -tip 0/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: writer-side optimizations Davidlohr Bueso
2016-11-18 18:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Move text file into Documentation/locking/ Davidlohr Bueso
2016-11-18 18:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Replace bulky wait-queues with swait Davidlohr Bueso
2016-11-21 12:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-11-21 17:26 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-12-03 2:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Rework writer block/wake to not use wait-queues Davidlohr Bueso
2016-12-05 8:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-05 11:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-12-05 11:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-12-05 17:37 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-12-05 17:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-12-05 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2016-11-18 18:54 ` [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Davidlohr Bueso
2016-11-21 12:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-11-21 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-21 12:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-11-21 15:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-11-22 3:59 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-11-23 14:43 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20161205171352.GB13035@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=dimitrysh@google.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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.