From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, aswin@hp.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip/master v2] locking/mutex: Refactor optimistic spinning code
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:41:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1406605299.2411.59.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1406602517.31161.2.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 19:55 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> +static bool mutex_optimistic_spin(struct mutex *lock,
> + struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *task = current;
> +
> + if (!mutex_can_spin_on_owner(lock))
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!osq_lock(&lock->osq))
> + return false;
In the !osq_lock() case, we could exit the cancellable MCS spinlock due
to need_resched(). However, this would return from the function rather
than doing the need_resched() check below. Perhaps we can add something
like "goto out" which goes to the below check?
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() also returns false if need_resched().
> + while (true) {
> + struct task_struct *owner;
> +
> + if (use_ww_ctx && ww_ctx->acquired > 0) {
> + struct ww_mutex *ww;
> +
> + ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
> + /*
> + * If ww->ctx is set the contents are undefined, only
> + * by acquiring wait_lock there is a guarantee that
> + * they are not invalid when reading.
> + *
> + * As such, when deadlock detection needs to be
> + * performed the optimistic spinning cannot be done.
> + */
> + if (ACCESS_ONCE(ww->ctx))
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * If there's an owner, wait for it to either
> + * release the lock or go to sleep.
> + */
> + owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> + if (owner && !mutex_spin_on_owner(lock, owner))
> + break;
> +
> + /* Try to acquire the mutex if it is unlocked. */
> + if (mutex_try_to_acquire(lock)) {
> + if (use_ww_ctx) {
> + struct ww_mutex *ww;
> + ww = container_of(lock, struct ww_mutex, base);
> +
> + ww_mutex_set_context_fastpath(ww, ww_ctx);
> + }
> +
> + mutex_set_owner(lock);
> + osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * When there's no owner, we might have preempted between the
> + * owner acquiring the lock and setting the owner field. If
> + * we're an RT task that will live-lock because we won't let
> + * the owner complete.
> + */
> + if (!owner && (need_resched() || rt_task(task)))
> + break;
> +
> + /*
> + * The cpu_relax() call is a compiler barrier which forces
> + * everything in this loop to be re-loaded. We don't need
> + * memory barriers as we'll eventually observe the right
> + * values at the cost of a few extra spins.
> + */
> + cpu_relax_lowlatency();
> + }
> +
> + osq_unlock(&lock->osq);
> +
> + /*
> + * If we fell out of the spin path because of need_resched(),
> + * reschedule now, before we try-lock the mutex. This avoids getting
> + * scheduled out right after we obtained the mutex.
> + */
> + if (need_resched())
> + schedule_preempt_disabled();
> +
> + return false;
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-29 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-28 5:18 [PATCH -tip/master 1/7] locking/mutex: Unify arguments in lock/unlock slowpaths Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 2/7] locking/mutex: Document quick lock release when unlocking Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:10 ` Jason Low
2014-07-30 18:20 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 3/7] locking/mcs: Remove obsolete comment Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 16:49 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 17:19 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 17:49 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 18:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 21:02 ` Jason Low
2014-07-30 15:11 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 4/7] locking/mutex: Refactor optimistic spinning code Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 16:39 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 16:41 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 2:55 ` [PATCH -tip/master v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 3:41 ` Jason Low [this message]
2014-07-29 4:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-29 4:51 ` [PATCH -tip/master v3] " Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 4/7] " Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 5/7] locking/mutex: Use MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER when appropriate Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-30 15:19 ` Jason Low
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH 6/7] locking: Move docs into Documentation/locking/ Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 5:18 ` [PATCH -tip/master 7/7] Documentation: Update locking/mutex-design.txt disadvantages Davidlohr Bueso
2014-07-28 18:09 ` Jason Low
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=1406605299.2411.59.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox