LinuxPPC-Dev Archive on lore.kernel.org

* Re: [PATCH V2] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat @ 2013-03-02 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lai Jiangshan
  Cc: Lai Jiangshan, linux-doc, peterz, fweisbec, linux-kernel,
	Michel Lespinasse, mingo, linux-arch, linux, xiaoguangrong,
	wangyun, paulmck, nikunj, linux-pm, rusty, rostedt, rjw, namhyung,
	tglx, linux-arm-kernel, netdev, Oleg Nesterov, vincent.guittot,
	sbw, tj, akpm, linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <5131FB4C.7070408@cn.fujitsu.com>

On 03/02/2013 06:44 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From 345a7a75c314ff567be48983e0892bc69c4452e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:33:14 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock
> 
> Current lglock is not read-preference, so it can't be used on some cases
> which read-preference rwlock can do. Example, get_cpu_online_atomic().
> 
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/lglock.c b/kernel/lglock.c
> index 6535a66..52e9b2c 100644
> --- a/kernel/lglock.c
> +++ b/kernel/lglock.c
> @@ -87,3 +87,71 @@ void lg_global_unlock(struct lglock *lg)
>  	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_global_unlock);
> +
> +#define FALLBACK_BASE	(1UL << 30)
> +
> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> +{
> +	struct lglock *lg = &lgrw->lglock;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt))) {
> +		rwlock_acquire_read(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +		if (unlikely(!arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lg->lock)))) {
> +			read_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> +			__this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	__this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->reader_refcnt);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(lg_rwlock_local_read_lock);
> +
> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> +{
> +	switch (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
> +	case 1:
> +		__this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> +		lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
> +		return;

This should be a break, instead of a return, right?
Otherwise, there will be a preempt imbalance...

> +	case FALLBACK_BASE:
> +		__this_cpu_write(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, 0);
> +		read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> +		rwlock_release(&lg->lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		__this_cpu_dec(*lgrw->reader_refcnt);
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	preempt_enable();
> +}

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

^ permalink raw reply