From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:20:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1453458019.9727.8.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160122085422.GO6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 09:54 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:02:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > This patch attempts to fix this live-lock condition by enabling the
> > a woken task in the wait list to enter optimistic spinning loop itself
> > with precedence over the ones in the OSQ. This should prevent the
> > live-lock
> > condition from happening.
>
>
> So I think having the top waiter going back in to contend on the OSQ is
> an excellent idea, but I'm not sure the wlh_spinning thing is important.
>
> The OSQ itself is FIFO fair, and the waiters retain the wait_list
> position. So having the top wait_list entry contending on the OSQ
> ensures we cannot starve (I think).
Right, and we can also avoid needing to add that extra field to the
mutex structure. Before calling optimistic spinning, we do want to check
if the lock is available to avoid unnecessary OSQ overhead though.
So maybe the following would be sufficient:
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 7 +++++++
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 0551c21..ead0bd1 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -543,6 +543,8 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);
for (;;) {
+ bool acquired = false;
+
/*
* Lets try to take the lock again - this is needed even if
* we get here for the first time (shortly after failing to
@@ -577,7 +579,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
/* didn't get the lock, go to sleep: */
spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
schedule_preempt_disabled();
+
+ if (mutex_is_locked(lock))
+ acquired = mutex_optimistic_spin(lock, ww_ctx, use_ww_ctx);
spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
+ if (acquired)
+ break;
}
__set_task_state(task, TASK_RUNNING);
--
1.7.2.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-22 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-21 9:29 [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Ding Tianhong
2016-01-21 21:23 ` Tim Chen
2016-01-22 2:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-22 2:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22 3:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-01-21 23:02 ` Waiman Long
2016-01-22 6:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22 13:38 ` Waiman Long
2016-01-22 16:46 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 2:23 ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Allow next waiter lockless wakeup Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 23:02 ` Waiman Long
2016-02-29 11:21 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22 8:54 ` [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 10:20 ` Jason Low [this message]
2016-01-22 10:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 11:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-22 13:59 ` Waiman Long
2016-01-24 8:03 ` Ding Tianhong
2016-01-29 9:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-30 1:18 ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-01 3:29 ` huang ying
2016-02-01 3:35 ` Huang, Ying
2016-02-01 10:08 ` [PATCH] locking/mutex: Avoid spinner vs waiter starvation Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-02 21:19 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-02-03 7:10 ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-03 19:24 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-02-04 1:20 ` Ding Tianhong
2016-02-12 18:33 ` Waiman Long
2016-02-03 22:07 ` Waiman Long
2016-02-04 1:35 ` Jason Low
2016-02-04 8:55 ` huang ying
2016-02-04 22:49 ` Jason Low
2016-01-22 13:41 ` [PATCH RFC] locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL Waiman Long
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-01-21 6:53 [PATCH RFC ] " Ding Tianhong
2016-01-21 7:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-01-21 9:04 ` Ding Tianhong
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=1453458019.9727.8.camel@j-VirtualBox \
--to=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dingtianhong@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=waiman.long@hpe.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).