[PATCH][RESEND] scalable rw_mutex

[PATCH][RESEND] scalable rw_mutex

[Ryan Hope]

This was posted sometime last year I think and it never got merged. Can this get 
a go around in -mm, it would help in converting the semaphore's in reiser4 to 
mutexes.

diff --git a/include/linux/rwmutex.h b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..39ec857
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+/*
+ * Scalable reader/writer lock.
+ *
+ *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
+ *
+ * This file contains the public data structure and API definitions.
+ */
+#ifndef _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
+#define _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
+
+#include <linux/preempt.h>
+#include <linux/wait.h>
+#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
+#include <linux/lockdep.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
+#include <asm/atomic.h>
+
+struct rw_mutex {
+	/* Read mostly global */
+	struct percpu_counter	readers;
+	unsigned int		status;
+
+	/* The following variables are only for the slowpath */
+	struct mutex		read_mutex;	/* r -> w waiting */
+	struct mutex		write_mutex;	/* w -> w waiting */
+	struct task_struct	*waiter;	/* w -> r waiting */
+	atomic_t		read_waiters;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
+#endif
+};
+
+void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char * name,
+		struct lock_class_key *key);
+void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
+
+#define rw_mutex_init(rw_mutex)					\
+	do {							\
+		static struct lock_class_key __key;		\
+		__rw_mutex_init((rw_mutex), #rw_mutex, &__key);	\
+	} while (0)
+
+void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
+
+void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass);
+void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
+
+int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
+
+static inline int rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	int ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
+	if (ret)
+		rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static inline void rw_mutex_read_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	might_sleep();
+	rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+
+	ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
+	if (!ret)
+		rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(rw_mutex);
+}
+
+void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
+
+static inline int rw_mutex_is_locked(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	return mutex_is_locked(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
+}
+
+static inline void rw_mutex_write_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(rw_mutex, 0);
+}
+
+#endif /* _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H */
diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index dd58bdc..8277ef5 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ obj-y     = sched.o fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o printk.o \
  	    rcupdate.o extable.o params.o posix-timers.o \
  	    kthread.o wait.o kfifo.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o mutex.o \
  	    hrtimer.o rwsem.o nsproxy.o srcu.o semaphore.o \
-	    notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o
+	    notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o rwmutex.o

  CFLAGS_REMOVE_sched.o = -mno-spe

diff --git a/kernel/rwmutex.c b/kernel/rwmutex.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2b82d11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/kernel/rwmutex.c
@@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
+/*
+ * Scalable reader/writer lock.
+ *
+ *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
+ *
+ * Its scalable in that the read count is a percpu counter and the reader fast
+ * path does not write to a shared cache-line.
+ *
+ * Its not FIFO fair, but starvation proof by alternating readers and writers.
+ */
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/rwmutex.h>
+#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+
+/*
+ * rw mutex - oxymoron when we take mutex to stand for 'MUTual EXlusion'
+ *
+ * However in this context we take mutex to mean a sleeping lock, with the
+ * property that it must be released by the same context that acquired it.
+ *
+ * design goals:
+ *
+ * A sleeping reader writer lock with a scalable read side, to avoid bouncing
+ * cache-lines.
+ *
+ * dynamics:
+ *
+ * The reader fast path is modification of a percpu_counter and a read of a
+ * shared cache-line.
+ *
+ * The write side is quite heavy; it takes two mutexes, a writer mutex and a
+ * readers mutex. The writer mutex is for w <-> w interaction, the read mutex
+ * for r -> w. The read side is forced into the slow path by setting the
+ * status bit. Then it waits for all current readers to disappear.
+ *
+ * The read lock slow path; taken when the status bit is set; takes the read
+ * mutex. Because the write side also takes this mutex, the new readers are
+ * blocked. The read unlock slow path tickles the writer every time a read
+ * lock is released.
+ *
+ * Write unlock clears the status bit, and drops the read mutex; allowing new
+ * readers. It then waits for at least one waiting reader to get a lock (if
+ * there were any readers waiting) before releasing the write mutex which will
+ * allow possible other writers to come in an stop new readers, thus avoiding
+ * starvation by alternating between readers and writers
+ *
+ * considerations:
+ *
+ * The lock's space footprint is quite large (on x86_64):
+ *
+ *   96 bytes				[struct rw_mutex]
+ *    8 bytes per cpu NR_CPUS		[void *]
+ *   32 bytes per cpu (NR_CPUS ?= cpu_possible_map ?= nr_cpu_ids)
+ *					[smallest slab]
+ *
+ * 1376 bytes for x86_64 defconfig (NR_CPUS = 32)
+ */
+
+#define RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST 	0
+#define RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW	1
+
+void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char *name,
+		struct lock_class_key *key)
+{
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)rw_mutex, sizeof(*rw_mutex));
+	lockdep_init_map(&rw_mutex->dep_map, name, key, 0);
+#endif
+
+	percpu_counter_init(&rw_mutex->readers, 0);
+	rw_mutex->status = RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST;
+	mutex_init(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
+	mutex_init(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
+	rw_mutex->waiter = NULL;
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
+	printk("rw_mutex size: %u\n", sizeof(struct rw_mutex));
+#endif
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_init);
+
+void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	percpu_counter_destroy(&rw_mutex->readers);
+	mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
+	mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_destroy);
+
+static inline void rw_mutex_readers_inc(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	percpu_counter_inc(&rw_mutex->readers);
+	smp_wmb();
+}
+
+static inline void rw_mutex_readers_dec(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	percpu_counter_dec(&rw_mutex->readers);
+	smp_wmb();
+}
+
+static inline long rw_mutex_readers(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	smp_rmb();
+	return percpu_counter_sum(&rw_mutex->readers);
+}
+
+#define rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, condition)			\
+do {									\
+	struct task_struct *tsk = current;				\
+									\
+	BUG_ON((rw_mutex)->waiter);					\
+	set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);			\
+	get_task_struct(tsk);						\
+	(rw_mutex)->waiter = tsk;					\
+	smp_wmb();							\
+	while (!(condition)) {						\
+		schedule();						\
+		set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);		\
+	}								\
+	tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;					\
+	(rw_mutex)->waiter = NULL;					\
+	put_task_struct(tsk);						\
+} while (0)
+
+static inline void rw_mutex_writer_wake(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	struct task_struct *tsk;
+
+	smp_rmb();
+	tsk = rw_mutex->waiter;
+	if (tsk)
+		wake_up_process(tsk);
+}
+
+void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	/*
+	 * read lock slow path;
+	 * count the number of readers waiting on the read_mutex
+	 */
+	atomic_inc(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
+	mutex_lock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
+
+	/*
+	 * rw_mutex->state is only set while the read_mutex is held
+	 * so by serialising on this lock, we're sure its free.
+	 */
+	BUG_ON(rw_mutex->status);
+
+	rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
+
+	/*
+	 * wake up a possible write unlock; waiting for at least a single
+	 * reader to pass before letting a new writer through.
+	 */
+	atomic_dec(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
+	rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_lock_slow);
+
+static inline
+void rw_mutex_status_set(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, unsigned int status)
+{
+	rw_mutex->status = status;
+	/*
+	 * allow new readers to see this change in status
+	 */
+	smp_wmb();
+}
+
+static inline unsigned int rw_mutex_reader_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	/*
+	 * match rw_mutex_status_set()
+	 */
+	smp_rmb();
+	return rw_mutex->status;
+}
+
+int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
+	if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex))) {
+		rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
+		/*
+		 * possibly wake up a writer waiting for this reference to
+		 * disappear
+		 */
+		rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
+		return 0;
+	}
+	return 1;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_read_trylock);
+
+void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+	rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
+	/*
+	 * on the slow path;
+	 * nudge the writer waiting for the last reader to go away
+	 */
+	if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex)))
+		rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_unlock);
+
+void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass)
+{
+	might_sleep();
+	rwsem_acquire(&rw_mutex->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
+
+	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->write_mutex, subclass);
+
+	/*
+	 * block new readers
+	 */
+	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->read_mutex, subclass);
+	rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW);
+	/*
+	 * and wait for all current readers to go away
+	 */
+	rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, (rw_mutex_readers(rw_mutex) == 0));
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_lock_nested);
+
+void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
+{
+	int waiters;
+
+	might_sleep();
+	rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+
+	/*
+	 * let the readers rip
+	 */
+	rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST);
+	waiters = atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
+	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
+	/*
+	 * wait for at least 1 reader to get through
+	 */
+	if (waiters) {
+		rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex,
+			(atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters) < waiters));
+	}
+	/*
+	 * before we let the writers rip
+	 */
+	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_unlock);

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] scalable rw_mutex

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 18:56 -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> This was posted sometime last year I think and it never got merged. Can this get 
> a go around in -mm, it would help in converting the semaphore's in reiser4 to 
> mutexes.

Thanks for CC'ing me :-/

I dropped it because its only more scalable up to around 4 cpus.

Also, how would it help reiser4? using rwsems is perfectly fine - as
they aren't actual semaphores.

> diff --git a/include/linux/rwmutex.h b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..39ec857
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
> +/*
> + * Scalable reader/writer lock.
> + *
> + *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
> + *
> + * This file contains the public data structure and API definitions.
> + */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
> +#define _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
> +
> +#include <linux/preempt.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <asm/atomic.h>
> +
> +struct rw_mutex {
> +	/* Read mostly global */
> +	struct percpu_counter	readers;
> +	unsigned int		status;
> +
> +	/* The following variables are only for the slowpath */
> +	struct mutex		read_mutex;	/* r -> w waiting */
> +	struct mutex		write_mutex;	/* w -> w waiting */
> +	struct task_struct	*waiter;	/* w -> r waiting */
> +	atomic_t		read_waiters;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +	struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> +#endif
> +};
> +
> +void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char * name,
> +		struct lock_class_key *key);
> +void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
> +
> +#define rw_mutex_init(rw_mutex)					\
> +	do {							\
> +		static struct lock_class_key __key;		\
> +		__rw_mutex_init((rw_mutex), #rw_mutex, &__key);	\
> +	} while (0)
> +
> +void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
> +
> +void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass);
> +void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
> +
> +int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
> +
> +static inline int rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	int ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
> +	if (ret)
> +		rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rw_mutex_read_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	might_sleep();
> +	rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +
> +	ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
> +	if (!ret)
> +		rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(rw_mutex);
> +}
> +
> +void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
> +
> +static inline int rw_mutex_is_locked(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	return mutex_is_locked(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rw_mutex_write_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(rw_mutex, 0);
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H */
> diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
> index dd58bdc..8277ef5 100644
> --- a/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ obj-y     = sched.o fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o printk.o \
>   	    rcupdate.o extable.o params.o posix-timers.o \
>   	    kthread.o wait.o kfifo.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o mutex.o \
>   	    hrtimer.o rwsem.o nsproxy.o srcu.o semaphore.o \
> -	    notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o
> +	    notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o rwmutex.o
> 
>   CFLAGS_REMOVE_sched.o = -mno-spe
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rwmutex.c b/kernel/rwmutex.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..2b82d11
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/kernel/rwmutex.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
> +/*
> + * Scalable reader/writer lock.
> + *
> + *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
> + *
> + * Its scalable in that the read count is a percpu counter and the reader fast
> + * path does not write to a shared cache-line.
> + *
> + * Its not FIFO fair, but starvation proof by alternating readers and writers.
> + */
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/rwmutex.h>
> +#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * rw mutex - oxymoron when we take mutex to stand for 'MUTual EXlusion'
> + *
> + * However in this context we take mutex to mean a sleeping lock, with the
> + * property that it must be released by the same context that acquired it.
> + *
> + * design goals:
> + *
> + * A sleeping reader writer lock with a scalable read side, to avoid bouncing
> + * cache-lines.
> + *
> + * dynamics:
> + *
> + * The reader fast path is modification of a percpu_counter and a read of a
> + * shared cache-line.
> + *
> + * The write side is quite heavy; it takes two mutexes, a writer mutex and a
> + * readers mutex. The writer mutex is for w <-> w interaction, the read mutex
> + * for r -> w. The read side is forced into the slow path by setting the
> + * status bit. Then it waits for all current readers to disappear.
> + *
> + * The read lock slow path; taken when the status bit is set; takes the read
> + * mutex. Because the write side also takes this mutex, the new readers are
> + * blocked. The read unlock slow path tickles the writer every time a read
> + * lock is released.
> + *
> + * Write unlock clears the status bit, and drops the read mutex; allowing new
> + * readers. It then waits for at least one waiting reader to get a lock (if
> + * there were any readers waiting) before releasing the write mutex which will
> + * allow possible other writers to come in an stop new readers, thus avoiding
> + * starvation by alternating between readers and writers
> + *
> + * considerations:
> + *
> + * The lock's space footprint is quite large (on x86_64):
> + *
> + *   96 bytes				[struct rw_mutex]
> + *    8 bytes per cpu NR_CPUS		[void *]
> + *   32 bytes per cpu (NR_CPUS ?= cpu_possible_map ?= nr_cpu_ids)
> + *					[smallest slab]
> + *
> + * 1376 bytes for x86_64 defconfig (NR_CPUS = 32)
> + */
> +
> +#define RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST 	0
> +#define RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW	1
> +
> +void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char *name,
> +		struct lock_class_key *key)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +	debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)rw_mutex, sizeof(*rw_mutex));
> +	lockdep_init_map(&rw_mutex->dep_map, name, key, 0);
> +#endif
> +
> +	percpu_counter_init(&rw_mutex->readers, 0);
> +	rw_mutex->status = RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST;
> +	mutex_init(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
> +	mutex_init(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
> +	rw_mutex->waiter = NULL;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +	printk("rw_mutex size: %u\n", sizeof(struct rw_mutex));
> +#endif
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_init);
> +
> +void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	percpu_counter_destroy(&rw_mutex->readers);
> +	mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
> +	mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_destroy);
> +
> +static inline void rw_mutex_readers_inc(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	percpu_counter_inc(&rw_mutex->readers);
> +	smp_wmb();
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rw_mutex_readers_dec(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	percpu_counter_dec(&rw_mutex->readers);
> +	smp_wmb();
> +}
> +
> +static inline long rw_mutex_readers(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	smp_rmb();
> +	return percpu_counter_sum(&rw_mutex->readers);
> +}
> +
> +#define rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, condition)			\
> +do {									\
> +	struct task_struct *tsk = current;				\
> +									\
> +	BUG_ON((rw_mutex)->waiter);					\
> +	set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);			\
> +	get_task_struct(tsk);						\
> +	(rw_mutex)->waiter = tsk;					\
> +	smp_wmb();							\
> +	while (!(condition)) {						\
> +		schedule();						\
> +		set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);		\
> +	}								\
> +	tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;					\
> +	(rw_mutex)->waiter = NULL;					\
> +	put_task_struct(tsk);						\
> +} while (0)
> +
> +static inline void rw_mutex_writer_wake(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> +	smp_rmb();
> +	tsk = rw_mutex->waiter;
> +	if (tsk)
> +		wake_up_process(tsk);
> +}
> +
> +void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * read lock slow path;
> +	 * count the number of readers waiting on the read_mutex
> +	 */
> +	atomic_inc(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
> +	mutex_lock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * rw_mutex->state is only set while the read_mutex is held
> +	 * so by serialising on this lock, we're sure its free.
> +	 */
> +	BUG_ON(rw_mutex->status);
> +
> +	rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * wake up a possible write unlock; waiting for at least a single
> +	 * reader to pass before letting a new writer through.
> +	 */
> +	atomic_dec(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
> +	rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_lock_slow);
> +
> +static inline
> +void rw_mutex_status_set(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, unsigned int status)
> +{
> +	rw_mutex->status = status;
> +	/*
> +	 * allow new readers to see this change in status
> +	 */
> +	smp_wmb();
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int rw_mutex_reader_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * match rw_mutex_status_set()
> +	 */
> +	smp_rmb();
> +	return rw_mutex->status;
> +}
> +
> +int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
> +	if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex))) {
> +		rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
> +		/*
> +		 * possibly wake up a writer waiting for this reference to
> +		 * disappear
> +		 */
> +		rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_read_trylock);
> +
> +void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +
> +	rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
> +	/*
> +	 * on the slow path;
> +	 * nudge the writer waiting for the last reader to go away
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex)))
> +		rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_unlock);
> +
> +void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass)
> +{
> +	might_sleep();
> +	rwsem_acquire(&rw_mutex->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +
> +	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->write_mutex, subclass);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * block new readers
> +	 */
> +	mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->read_mutex, subclass);
> +	rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW);
> +	/*
> +	 * and wait for all current readers to go away
> +	 */
> +	rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, (rw_mutex_readers(rw_mutex) == 0));
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_lock_nested);
> +
> +void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
> +{
> +	int waiters;
> +
> +	might_sleep();
> +	rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * let the readers rip
> +	 */
> +	rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST);
> +	waiters = atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
> +	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
> +	/*
> +	 * wait for at least 1 reader to get through
> +	 */
> +	if (waiters) {
> +		rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex,
> +			(atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters) < waiters));
> +	}
> +	/*
> +	 * before we let the writers rip
> +	 */
> +	mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_unlock);
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] scalable rw_mutex

[Ryan Hope]

Sorry for not CCing you, I had intended to CC you and others but I
clicked send too quick. One of the reiser4 todo's was remove all
semaphore's, I didnt realize rw_semaphores were not real semaphores

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 18:56 -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>> This was posted sometime last year I think and it never got merged. Can this get
>> a go around in -mm, it would help in converting the semaphore's in reiser4 to
>> mutexes.
>
> Thanks for CC'ing me :-/
>
> I dropped it because its only more scalable up to around 4 cpus.
>
> Also, how would it help reiser4? using rwsems is perfectly fine - as
> they aren't actual semaphores.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/rwmutex.h b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..39ec857
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/include/linux/rwmutex.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Scalable reader/writer lock.
>> + *
>> + *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
>> + *
>> + * This file contains the public data structure and API definitions.
>> + */
>> +#ifndef _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
>> +#define _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H
>> +
>> +#include <linux/preempt.h>
>> +#include <linux/wait.h>
>> +#include <linux/percpu_counter.h>
>> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
>> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
>> +#include <asm/atomic.h>
>> +
>> +struct rw_mutex {
>> +     /* Read mostly global */
>> +     struct percpu_counter   readers;
>> +     unsigned int            status;
>> +
>> +     /* The following variables are only for the slowpath */
>> +     struct mutex            read_mutex;     /* r -> w waiting */
>> +     struct mutex            write_mutex;    /* w -> w waiting */
>> +     struct task_struct      *waiter;        /* w -> r waiting */
>> +     atomic_t                read_waiters;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>> +     struct lockdep_map dep_map;
>> +#endif
>> +};
>> +
>> +void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char * name,
>> +             struct lock_class_key *key);
>> +void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +#define rw_mutex_init(rw_mutex)                                      \
>> +     do {                                                    \
>> +             static struct lock_class_key __key;             \
>> +             __rw_mutex_init((rw_mutex), #rw_mutex, &__key); \
>> +     } while (0)
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass);
>> +void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +static inline int rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     int ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
>> +     if (ret)
>> +             rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> +     return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void rw_mutex_read_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     int ret;
>> +
>> +     might_sleep();
>> +     rwsem_acquire_read(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> +
>> +     ret = __rw_mutex_read_trylock(rw_mutex);
>> +     if (!ret)
>> +             rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(rw_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +static inline int rw_mutex_is_locked(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     return mutex_is_locked(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void rw_mutex_write_lock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(rw_mutex, 0);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#endif /* _LINUX_RWMUTEX_H */
>> diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
>> index dd58bdc..8277ef5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/Makefile
>> +++ b/kernel/Makefile
>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ obj-y     = sched.o fork.o exec_domain.o panic.o printk.o \
>>           rcupdate.o extable.o params.o posix-timers.o \
>>           kthread.o wait.o kfifo.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o mutex.o \
>>           hrtimer.o rwsem.o nsproxy.o srcu.o semaphore.o \
>> -         notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o
>> +         notifier.o ksysfs.o pm_qos_params.o sched_clock.o rwmutex.o
>>
>>   CFLAGS_REMOVE_sched.o = -mno-spe
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rwmutex.c b/kernel/rwmutex.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..2b82d11
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/kernel/rwmutex.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Scalable reader/writer lock.
>> + *
>> + *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@redhat.com>
>> + *
>> + * Its scalable in that the read count is a percpu counter and the reader fast
>> + * path does not write to a shared cache-line.
>> + *
>> + * Its not FIFO fair, but starvation proof by alternating readers and writers.
>> + */
>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>> +#include <linux/rwmutex.h>
>> +#include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * rw mutex - oxymoron when we take mutex to stand for 'MUTual EXlusion'
>> + *
>> + * However in this context we take mutex to mean a sleeping lock, with the
>> + * property that it must be released by the same context that acquired it.
>> + *
>> + * design goals:
>> + *
>> + * A sleeping reader writer lock with a scalable read side, to avoid bouncing
>> + * cache-lines.
>> + *
>> + * dynamics:
>> + *
>> + * The reader fast path is modification of a percpu_counter and a read of a
>> + * shared cache-line.
>> + *
>> + * The write side is quite heavy; it takes two mutexes, a writer mutex and a
>> + * readers mutex. The writer mutex is for w <-> w interaction, the read mutex
>> + * for r -> w. The read side is forced into the slow path by setting the
>> + * status bit. Then it waits for all current readers to disappear.
>> + *
>> + * The read lock slow path; taken when the status bit is set; takes the read
>> + * mutex. Because the write side also takes this mutex, the new readers are
>> + * blocked. The read unlock slow path tickles the writer every time a read
>> + * lock is released.
>> + *
>> + * Write unlock clears the status bit, and drops the read mutex; allowing new
>> + * readers. It then waits for at least one waiting reader to get a lock (if
>> + * there were any readers waiting) before releasing the write mutex which will
>> + * allow possible other writers to come in an stop new readers, thus avoiding
>> + * starvation by alternating between readers and writers
>> + *
>> + * considerations:
>> + *
>> + * The lock's space footprint is quite large (on x86_64):
>> + *
>> + *   96 bytes                                [struct rw_mutex]
>> + *    8 bytes per cpu NR_CPUS                [void *]
>> + *   32 bytes per cpu (NR_CPUS ?= cpu_possible_map ?= nr_cpu_ids)
>> + *                                   [smallest slab]
>> + *
>> + * 1376 bytes for x86_64 defconfig (NR_CPUS = 32)
>> + */
>> +
>> +#define RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST         0
>> +#define RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW 1
>> +
>> +void __rw_mutex_init(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, const char *name,
>> +             struct lock_class_key *key)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>> +     debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)rw_mutex, sizeof(*rw_mutex));
>> +     lockdep_init_map(&rw_mutex->dep_map, name, key, 0);
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +     percpu_counter_init(&rw_mutex->readers, 0);
>> +     rw_mutex->status = RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST;
>> +     mutex_init(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
>> +     mutex_init(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
>> +     rw_mutex->waiter = NULL;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
>> +     printk("rw_mutex size: %u\n", sizeof(struct rw_mutex));
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_init);
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_destroy(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     percpu_counter_destroy(&rw_mutex->readers);
>> +     mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
>> +     mutex_destroy(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_destroy);
>> +
>> +static inline void rw_mutex_readers_inc(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     percpu_counter_inc(&rw_mutex->readers);
>> +     smp_wmb();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void rw_mutex_readers_dec(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     percpu_counter_dec(&rw_mutex->readers);
>> +     smp_wmb();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline long rw_mutex_readers(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     smp_rmb();
>> +     return percpu_counter_sum(&rw_mutex->readers);
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, condition)                    \
>> +do {                                                                 \
>> +     struct task_struct *tsk = current;                              \
>> +                                                                     \
>> +     BUG_ON((rw_mutex)->waiter);                                     \
>> +     set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);                      \
>> +     get_task_struct(tsk);                                           \
>> +     (rw_mutex)->waiter = tsk;                                       \
>> +     smp_wmb();                                                      \
>> +     while (!(condition)) {                                          \
>> +             schedule();                                             \
>> +             set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);              \
>> +     }                                                               \
>> +     tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;                                      \
>> +     (rw_mutex)->waiter = NULL;                                      \
>> +     put_task_struct(tsk);                                           \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +static inline void rw_mutex_writer_wake(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     struct task_struct *tsk;
>> +
>> +     smp_rmb();
>> +     tsk = rw_mutex->waiter;
>> +     if (tsk)
>> +             wake_up_process(tsk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_read_lock_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * read lock slow path;
>> +      * count the number of readers waiting on the read_mutex
>> +      */
>> +     atomic_inc(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
>> +     mutex_lock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * rw_mutex->state is only set while the read_mutex is held
>> +      * so by serialising on this lock, we're sure its free.
>> +      */
>> +     BUG_ON(rw_mutex->status);
>> +
>> +     rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * wake up a possible write unlock; waiting for at least a single
>> +      * reader to pass before letting a new writer through.
>> +      */
>> +     atomic_dec(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
>> +     rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
>> +     mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_lock_slow);
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +void rw_mutex_status_set(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, unsigned int status)
>> +{
>> +     rw_mutex->status = status;
>> +     /*
>> +      * allow new readers to see this change in status
>> +      */
>> +     smp_wmb();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline unsigned int rw_mutex_reader_slow(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * match rw_mutex_status_set()
>> +      */
>> +     smp_rmb();
>> +     return rw_mutex->status;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int __rw_mutex_read_trylock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     rw_mutex_readers_inc(rw_mutex);
>> +     if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex))) {
>> +             rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
>> +             /*
>> +              * possibly wake up a writer waiting for this reference to
>> +              * disappear
>> +              */
>> +             rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
>> +             return 0;
>> +     }
>> +     return 1;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__rw_mutex_read_trylock);
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_read_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> +
>> +     rw_mutex_readers_dec(rw_mutex);
>> +     /*
>> +      * on the slow path;
>> +      * nudge the writer waiting for the last reader to go away
>> +      */
>> +     if (unlikely(rw_mutex_reader_slow(rw_mutex)))
>> +             rw_mutex_writer_wake(rw_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_read_unlock);
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_write_lock_nested(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex, int subclass)
>> +{
>> +     might_sleep();
>> +     rwsem_acquire(&rw_mutex->dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->write_mutex, subclass);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * block new readers
>> +      */
>> +     mutex_lock_nested(&rw_mutex->read_mutex, subclass);
>> +     rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_SLOW);
>> +     /*
>> +      * and wait for all current readers to go away
>> +      */
>> +     rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex, (rw_mutex_readers(rw_mutex) == 0));
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_lock_nested);
>> +
>> +void rw_mutex_write_unlock(struct rw_mutex *rw_mutex)
>> +{
>> +     int waiters;
>> +
>> +     might_sleep();
>> +     rwsem_release(&rw_mutex->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> +
>> +     /*
>> +      * let the readers rip
>> +      */
>> +     rw_mutex_status_set(rw_mutex, RW_MUTEX_READER_FAST);
>> +     waiters = atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters);
>> +     mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->read_mutex);
>> +     /*
>> +      * wait for at least 1 reader to get through
>> +      */
>> +     if (waiters) {
>> +             rw_mutex_writer_wait(rw_mutex,
>> +                     (atomic_read(&rw_mutex->read_waiters) < waiters));
>> +     }
>> +     /*
>> +      * before we let the writers rip
>> +      */
>> +     mutex_unlock(&rw_mutex->write_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rw_mutex_write_unlock);
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] scalable rw_mutex

[Peter Zijlstra]

A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:04 -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> Sorry for not CCing you, I had intended to CC you and others but I
> clicked send too quick. One of the reiser4 todo's was remove all
> semaphore's, I didnt realize rw_semaphores were not real semaphores

Yeah, more people make that mistake. They're basically a sleeping rw
lock and already conform to the semantics that are required for lockdep
and are thus also already covered by lockdep.

> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 18:56 -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
> >> This was posted sometime last year I think and it never got merged. Can this get
> >> a go around in -mm, it would help in converting the semaphore's in reiser4 to
> >> mutexes.
> >
> > Thanks for CC'ing me :-/
> >
> > I dropped it because its only more scalable up to around 4 cpus.
> >
> > Also, how would it help reiser4? using rwsems is perfectly fine - as
> > they aren't actual semaphores.

<snip code>