From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, bristot@redhat.com,
longman@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/percpu_rwsem: Rewrite to not use rwsem
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:56:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190807095657.GA24112@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806171515.GR2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:17:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > but this will also wake all the pending readers up. Every reader will burn
> > CPU for no reason and likely delay the writer.
> >
> > In fact I'm afraid this can lead to live-lock, because every reader in turn
> > will call __percpu_up_read().
>
> I didn't really consider that case important; because of how heavy the
> write side is, it should be relatively rare.
Well yes, but down_read() should not stress the system.
However I was wrong, it is not that bad as I thought, I forgot that the
pending reader won't return from wait_event(sem->block) if another reader
comes.
Still I think we should try to avoid the unnecessary wakeups. See below.
> > How about 2 wait queues?
>
> That said, I can certainly try that.
and either way, with or without 2 queues, what do you think about the code
below?
This way the new reader does wake_up() only in the very unlikely case when
it races with the new writer which sets sem->block = 1 right after
this_cpu_inc().
Oleg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
might_sleep();
rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
preempt_disable();
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
else
__percpu_down_read(sem, false);
preempt_enable();
}
static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
preempt_disable();
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
else
__percpu_up_read(sem);
preempt_enable();
}
// both called and return with preemption disabled
bool __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool try)
{
if (atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)) {
again:
preempt_enable();
__wait_event(sem->waiters, !atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block));
preempt_disable();
}
__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
smp_mb();
if (likely(!atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)))
return true;
__percpu_up_read(sem);
if (try)
return false;
goto again;
}
void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
smp_mb();
__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
wake_up(&sem->waiters);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-05 14:02 [PATCH] locking/percpu_rwsem: Rewrite to not use rwsem Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-05 14:43 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-05 14:58 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-05 15:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-06 14:15 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-06 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-08-06 17:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-07 9:56 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-10-29 18:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 14:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-10-30 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 17:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 18:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-31 6:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-07 14:45 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-29 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 15:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-10-30 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20190807095657.GA24112@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@kernel.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.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.