From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 07/10] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:21:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57B73225.7020303@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CzfQFHDZDdBc+WxSkFPaE6x=b+PGBeEnnAqgmjDi=1DDA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/19/2016 01:57 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-08-19 5:11 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hpe.com>:
>> When the count value is in between 0 and RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, there
>> are 2 possibilities.
>> Either a writer is present and there is no waiter
> count = 0xffff0001
>
>> or there are waiters and readers. There is no easy way to
> count = 0xffff000X
>
> However, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS is equal to 0xffff0000, so both these two
> cases are beyond RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, right?
>
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
Perhaps I should make it clear that I am talking from a signed quantity
point of view (it is an atomic_long_t). So
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS < RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS < 0
Hope this clarify your question.
Cheers,
Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 07/10] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:21:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57B73225.7020303@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CzfQFHDZDdBc+WxSkFPaE6x=b+PGBeEnnAqgmjDi=1DDA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/19/2016 01:57 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-08-19 5:11 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hpe.com>:
>> When the count value is in between 0 and RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, there
>> are 2 possibilities.
>> Either a writer is present and there is no waiter
> count = 0xffff0001
>
>> or there are waiters and readers. There is no easy way to
> count = 0xffff000X
>
> However, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS is equal to 0xffff0000, so both these two
> cases are beyond RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, right?
>
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
Perhaps I should make it clear that I am talking from a signed quantity
point of view (it is an atomic_long_t). So
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS < RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS < 0
Hope this clarify your question.
Cheers,
Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
<linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v4 07/10] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:21:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57B73225.7020303@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CzfQFHDZDdBc+WxSkFPaE6x=b+PGBeEnnAqgmjDi=1DDA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/19/2016 01:57 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-08-19 5:11 GMT+08:00 Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hpe.com>:
>> When the count value is in between 0 and RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, there
>> are 2 possibilities.
>> Either a writer is present and there is no waiter
> count = 0xffff0001
>
>> or there are waiters and readers. There is no easy way to
> count = 0xffff000X
>
> However, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS is equal to 0xffff0000, so both these two
> cases are beyond RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, right?
>
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
Perhaps I should make it clear that I am talking from a signed quantity
point of view (it is an atomic_long_t). So
RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS < RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS < 0
Hope this clarify your question.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-19 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-18 21:11 [RFC PATCH-tip v4 00/10] locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 01/10] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-04 19:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-04 19:06 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-04 21:28 ` Jason Low
2016-10-04 21:28 ` Jason Low
2016-10-05 12:19 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-05 12:19 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-05 12:19 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-05 15:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-05 15:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-05 15:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-06 5:47 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 5:47 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 19:30 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-06 19:30 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-06 19:30 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-10 5:39 ` [PATCH] locking/osq: Provide proper lock/unlock and relaxed flavors Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-10 5:39 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 19:31 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 01/10] locking/osq: Make lock/unlock proper acquire/release barrier Jason Low
2016-10-06 19:31 ` Jason Low
2016-10-06 19:31 ` Jason Low
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 02/10] locking/rwsem: Stop active read lock ASAP Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-06 18:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 18:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 21:47 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-06 21:47 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-06 22:51 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-06 22:51 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-10-07 21:45 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-07 21:45 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-07 21:45 ` Waiman Long
2016-10-09 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-09 15:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-10 6:07 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-10 6:07 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-10 9:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-10 9:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-11 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-11 21:06 ` Dave Chinner
2016-10-16 5:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-10-16 5:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 03/10] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return a tri-state value Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 04/10] locking/rwsem: Enable count-based spinning on reader Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 05/10] locking/rwsem: move down rwsem_down_read_failed function Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 06/10] locking/rwsem: Move common rwsem macros to asm-generic/rwsem_types.h Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 07/10] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS for better disambiguation Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-19 5:57 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-19 5:57 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-19 16:21 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2016-08-19 16:21 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-19 16:21 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-22 2:15 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-22 2:15 ` Wanpeng Li
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 08/10] locking/rwsem: Enable spinning readers Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 09/10] locking/rwsem: Enable reactivation of reader spinning Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 10/10] locking/rwsem: Add a boot parameter to reader spinning threshold Waiman Long
2016-08-18 21:11 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-24 1:46 ` [lkp] [locking/rwsem] INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks kernel test robot
2016-08-24 1:46 ` kernel test robot
2016-08-24 1:46 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-08-24 4:00 ` [RFC PATCH-tip v4 10/10] locking/rwsem: Add a boot parameter to reader spinning threshold Davidlohr Bueso
2016-08-24 4:00 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-08-24 18:39 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-24 18:39 ` Waiman Long
2016-08-24 18:39 ` Waiman Long
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=57B73225.7020303@hpe.com \
--to=waiman.long@hpe.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=doug.hatch@hpe.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hpe.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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.