From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:10:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130131131032.GA6627@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANN689GwGh2sHwoP66JjoXs2ZMQAXbVpA0MHQahWq5M+baNfSQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Yuanhan Liu
> <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > We(Linux Kernel Performance project) found a regression introduced by
> > commit 5a50508, which just convert all mutex lock to rwsem write lock.
> > The semantics is same, but the results is quite huge in some cases.
> > After investigation, we found the root cause: mutex support lock
> > stealing. Here is the link for the detailed regression report:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/29/84
> >
> > Ingo suggests to add write lock stealing to rwsem as well:
> > "I think we should allow lock-steal between rwsem writers - that
> > will not hurt fairness as most rwsem fairness concerns relate to
> > reader vs. writer fairness"
> >
> > I then tried it with rwsem-spinlock first as I found it much easier to
> > implement it than lib/rwsem.c. And here I sent out this patch first for
> > comments. I'd try lib/rwsem.c later once the change to rwsem-spinlock
> > is OK to you guys.
>
> I noticed that you haven't modified __down_write_trylock() - for
> consistency with __down_write() you should replace
> if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
> with
> if (sem->activity == 0) {
>
> Other than that, I like the idea. I was originally
> uncomfortable with doing lock stealing for the rwsem, but I
> think doing it for writers only as you propose should be fine.
> Readers wait for any queued writers, and in exchange they are
> guaranteed to get the lock once they've blocked. You *still*
> want to check for regressions that this change might cause -
> not with anon_vma as this was a mutex not long ago, but
> possibly with mmap_sem - but I'm crossing my fingers and
> thinking that it'll most likely turn out fine.
My gut feeling, from having implemented lock stealing in a
number of locking primitives in the past, is that writer
lock-stealing will be a measurable win for mmap_sem as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-31 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-30 9:14 [PATCH] rwsem-spinlock: let rwsem write lock stealable Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 9:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-31 10:09 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 10:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-31 12:23 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 11:57 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-31 12:40 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 13:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-31 14:36 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 21:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-01 2:16 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-01-31 13:10 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20130131131032.GA6627@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=walken@google.com \
--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