From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755234AbcGVS3y (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:29:54 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:52792 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752352AbcGVS3x (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:29:53 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,405,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1022157546"
Message-ID: <1469212184.9353.15.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Avoid mutex starvation when optimistic spinning is
 disabled
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reply-To: imre.deak@intel.com
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:29:44 +0300
In-Reply-To: <20160722180309.GB1881@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1468858607-20481-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>
	 <20160718171537.GC6862@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1468864069.2367.21.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1468947205.31332.40.camel@intel.com>
	 <1468969470.10247.15.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1468989556.10247.22.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	 <1469021399.19093.14.camel@intel.com>
	 <1469134658.2344.12.camel@j-VirtualBox> <57925E25.8010506@hpe.com>
	 <20160722180309.GB1881@linux-80c1.suse>
Organization: Intel
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2016-07-22 at 11:03 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> > I think making mutex_trylock() fail maybe a bit too far. Do we
> > really 
> > have any real workload that cause starvation problem  because of
> > that. 
> > Code that does mutex_trylock() in a loop can certainly cause lock 
> > starvation, but it is not how mutex_trylock() is supposed to be
> > used. 
> > We can't build in safeguard for all the possible abuses of the
> > mutex 
> > APIs.
>
> True, and that's actually why I think that 'fixing' the
> !SPIN_ON_OWNER case
> is a bit too far in the first place: most of the archs that will care
> about
> this already have ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW. The extra code for
> dealing with
> this is not worth it imo.

SPIN_ON_OWNER is also disabled in case of DEBUG_MUTEXES, which is the
config where I wanted to avoid starvation in the first place.

--Imre