From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT] rwsem_rt: Another (more sane) approach to mulit reader rt locks
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:06:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1337094383.27694.62.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337090625.14207.304.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 10:03 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> where readers may nest (the same task may grab the same rwsem for
> read multiple times), but only one task may hold the rwsem at any
> given
> time (for read or write).
Humm, that sounds iffy, rwsem isn't a recursive read lock only rwlock_t
is.
> The idea here is to have an rwsem create a rt_mutex for each CPU.
> Actually, it creates a rwsem for each CPU that can only be acquired by
> one task at a time. This allows for readers on separate CPUs to take
> only the per cpu lock. When a writer needs to take a lock, it must
> grab
> all CPU locks before continuing.
So you've turned it into a global/local or br or whatever that thing was
called lock.
>
> Also, I don't use per_cpu sections for the locks, which means we have
> cache line collisions, but a normal (mainline) rwsem has that as well.
>
Why not?
> Thoughts?
Ideally someone would try and get rid of mmap_sem itself.. but that's a
tough nut.
> void rt_down_write(struct rw_semaphore *rwsem)
> {
> - rwsem_acquire(&rwsem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> - rt_mutex_lock(&rwsem->lock);
> + int i;
> + initialize_rwsem(rwsem);
> + for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> + rwsem_acquire(&rwsem->lock[i].dep_map, 0, 0,
> _RET_IP_);
> + rt_mutex_lock(&rwsem->lock[i].lock);
> + }
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rt_down_write);
>
That'll make lockdep explode.. you'll want to make the whole set a
single lock and not treat it as nr_cpus locks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-15 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-15 14:03 [RFC][PATCH RT] rwsem_rt: Another (more sane) approach to mulit reader rt locks Steven Rostedt
2012-05-15 15:06 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-05-15 15:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-15 17:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-15 17:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-15 17:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-15 16:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-15 18:00 ` John Kacur
2012-05-15 18:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-17 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-17 15:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-17 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-17 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-17 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-17 20:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-05-17 20:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-22 15:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-05-22 15:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-22 16:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-05-22 16:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-05-22 17:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-05-22 17:50 ` Steven Rostedt
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=1337094383.27694.62.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).