From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 06/12] rwsem: more agressive lock stealing in rwsem_down_write_failed
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:21:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1362612111-28673-7-git-send-email-walken@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1362612111-28673-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
Some small code simplifications can be achieved by doing more agressive
lock stealing:
- When rwsem_down_write_failed() notices that there are no active locks
(and thus no thread to wake us if we decided to sleep), it used to wake
the first queued process. However, stealing the lock is also sufficient
to deal with this case, so we don't need this check anymore.
- In try_get_writer_sem(), we can steal the lock even when the first waiter
is a reader. This is correct because the code path that wakes readers is
protected by the wait_lock. As to the performance effects of this change,
they are expected to be minimal: readers are still granted the lock
(rather than having to acquire it themselves) when they reach the front
of the wait queue, so we have essentially the same behavior as in
rwsem-spinlock.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
---
lib/rwsem.c | 29 ++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
index c73bd96dc30c..2360bf204098 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c
@@ -143,20 +143,12 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wake_type)
}
/* Try to get write sem, caller holds sem->wait_lock: */
-static int try_get_writer_sem(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
- struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
+static int try_get_writer_sem(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- struct rwsem_waiter *fwaiter;
long oldcount, adjustment;
- /* only steal when first waiter is writing */
- fwaiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
- if (fwaiter->type != RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
- return 0;
-
adjustment = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS;
- /* Only one waiter in the queue: */
- if (fwaiter == waiter && waiter->list.next == &sem->wait_list)
+ if (list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
adjustment -= RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
try_again_write:
@@ -233,23 +225,18 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
/* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */
count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem);
- /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up.
- *
- * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there
- * were already threads queued before us and there are no active
- * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read
- * locks that were queued ahead of us. */
- if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)
- sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE);
- else if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
- adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
+ /* If there were already threads queued before us and there are no
+ * active writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake
+ * any read locks that were queued ahead of us. */
+ if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
+ adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS)
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED);
/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
while (true) {
set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, &waiter))
+ if (try_get_writer_sem(sem))
break;
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
--
1.8.1.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-06 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-06 23:21 [PATCH 00/12] rwsem fast-path write lock stealing Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 01/12] rwsem: make the waiter type an enumeration rather than a bitmask Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-13 21:33 ` Rik van Riel
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 02/12] rwsem: shorter spinlocked section in rwsem_down_failed_common() Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 03/12] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 04/12] rwsem: simplify rwsem_down_read_failed Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 05/12] rwsem: simplify rwsem_down_write_failed Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 07/12] rwsem: use cmpxchg for trying to steal write lock Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 08/12] rwsem: avoid taking wait_lock in rwsem_down_write_failed Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 09/12] rwsem: skip initial trylock " Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 10/12] rwsem-spinlock: wake all readers when first waiter is a reader Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 11/12] rwsem: " Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-09 0:32 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-09 1:20 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-11 0:16 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-11 5:17 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-12 2:36 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-12 6:43 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-13 3:23 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-13 11:03 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-14 2:00 ` Peter Hurley
2013-03-19 1:17 ` Dave Chinner
2013-03-19 23:48 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-11 7:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-03-11 20:36 ` Peter Hurley
2013-03-14 7:03 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-14 11:39 ` Peter Hurley
2013-03-14 15:20 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-03-06 23:21 ` [PATCH 12/12] x86 rwsem: avoid taking slow path when stealing write lock Michel Lespinasse
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=1362612111-28673-7-git-send-email-walken@google.com \
--to=walken@google.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.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