All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:48:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C8B0AA.4070204@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372105065.22432.65.camel@schen9-DESK>

On 06/24/2013 04:17 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 14:49 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 01:11 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 13:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 03:57 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>> On 06/21/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	int retval = true;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* Spin only if active writer running */
>>>>>> +	if (!sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>> +	if (sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		retval = sem->owner->on_cpu;
>>>>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this a safe dereference? Could not another cpu have just
>>>>> dropped the sem (and thus set sem->owner to NULL and oops)?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The rcu read lock should protect against sem->owner being NULL.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>>
>> Here's the comment from mutex_spin_on_owner():
>>
>>     /*
>>      * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
>>      * access and not reliable.
>>      */
>
> On second thought, I agree with you.  I should change this to
> something like
>
> 	int retval = true;
> 	task_struct *sem_owner;
>
> 	/* Spin only if active writer running */
> 	if (!sem->owner)
> 		return false;
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	sem_owner = sem->owner;
> 	if (sem_owner)
> 		retval = sem_owner->on_cpu;
>

Our emails passed each other.

Also, I haven't given a lot of thought to if preemption must be disabled
before calling rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(). If so, wouldn't you just drop
rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() (because the conditions tested in the loop are
equivalent)?

Regards,
Peter Hurley


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:48:42 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C8B0AA.4070204@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1372105065.22432.65.camel@schen9-DESK>

On 06/24/2013 04:17 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 14:49 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 01:11 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 13:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 03:57 -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>> On 06/21/2013 07:51 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	int retval = true;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* Spin only if active writer running */
>>>>>> +	if (!sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>> +	if (sem->owner)
>>>>>> +		retval = sem->owner->on_cpu;
>>>>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this a safe dereference? Could not another cpu have just
>>>>> dropped the sem (and thus set sem->owner to NULL and oops)?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The rcu read lock should protect against sem->owner being NULL.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>>
>> Here's the comment from mutex_spin_on_owner():
>>
>>     /*
>>      * Look out! "owner" is an entirely speculative pointer
>>      * access and not reliable.
>>      */
>
> On second thought, I agree with you.  I should change this to
> something like
>
> 	int retval = true;
> 	task_struct *sem_owner;
>
> 	/* Spin only if active writer running */
> 	if (!sem->owner)
> 		return false;
>
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	sem_owner = sem->owner;
> 	if (sem_owner)
> 		retval = sem_owner->on_cpu;
>

Our emails passed each other.

Also, I haven't given a lot of thought to if preemption must be disabled
before calling rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(). If so, wouldn't you just drop
rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() (because the conditions tested in the loop are
equivalent)?

Regards,
Peter Hurley



  reply	other threads:[~2013-06-24 20:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <cover.1371855277.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-06-21 23:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock and rwsem_do_wake Tim Chen
2013-06-21 23:51   ` Tim Chen
2013-06-22  0:10   ` Alex Shi
2013-06-22  0:10     ` Alex Shi
2013-06-22  0:15     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-22  0:15       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-24 16:34     ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 16:34       ` Tim Chen
2013-06-22  7:21   ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-22  7:21     ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-23  1:16     ` Alex Shi
2013-06-23  1:16       ` Alex Shi
2013-06-23  5:10       ` Andi Kleen
2013-06-23  5:10         ` Andi Kleen
2013-06-23 11:52         ` Alex Shi
2013-06-23 11:52           ` Alex Shi
2013-06-21 23:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition Tim Chen
2013-06-21 23:51   ` Tim Chen
2013-06-22  0:00   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-22  0:00     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-22  7:57   ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-22  7:57     ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-23 20:03     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-23 20:03       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-24 17:11       ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 17:11         ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 18:49         ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 18:49           ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 19:13           ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 19:13             ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 20:32             ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 20:32               ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 20:17           ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 20:17             ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 20:48             ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2013-06-24 20:48               ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 21:30               ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 21:30                 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-25  7:37             ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-25  7:37               ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-25 16:00               ` Tim Chen
2013-06-25 16:00                 ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 21:58     ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 21:58       ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 22:08       ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24 22:08         ` Peter Hurley
2013-06-24  8:46   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-24  8:46     ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-24 16:36     ` Tim Chen
2013-06-24 16:36       ` Tim Chen

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=51C8B0AA.4070204@hurleysoftware.com \
    --to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=walken@google.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.