From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759259AbaD3SFH (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:05:07 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42122 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758820AbaD3SFF (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:05:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:04:41 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tim Chen Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E.McKenney" , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , "Norton, Scott J" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rwsem: Support optimistic spinning Message-ID: <20140430180441.GF17778@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1398205166.6345.7.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <1398722941.25549.16.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20140430082715.GA11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1398880209.2970.100.camel@schen9-DESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1398880209.2970.100.camel@schen9-DESK> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:50:09AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 10:27 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 03:09:01PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * Try to acquire write lock before the writer has been put on wait queue. > > > + */ > > > +static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > > > +{ > > > + long count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count); > > > +retry: > > > + if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) { > > > + count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, > > > + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS); count = RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS new = RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS new = count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS > > > + /* allow write lock stealing, try acquiring the write lock. */ > > > + if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) > > > + goto acquired; > > > + else if (count == 0) > > > + goto retry; > > > + } else if (count == 0) { > > > + count = cmpxchg(&sem->count, 0, RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS); count = 0 new = RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS new = count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS > > > + if (count == 0) > > > + goto acquired; > > > + else if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) > > > + goto retry; > > > + } > > > + return false; > > > + > > > +acquired: > > > + return true; > > > +} > > > > Could we have written that like: > > > > static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > > { > > long old, count = ACCESS_ONCE(sem->count); > > > > for (;;) { > > if (!(count == 0 || count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS)) > > return false; > > > > old = cmpxchg(&sem->count, count, count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS); > > Above line won't be correct for the case when count == 0. We are trying > to acquire write lock, so the sem->count should become > RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS, or RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS + RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS. > So we should change the logic to > > if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) > old = cmpxchg(&sem->count, count, count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS); > else > old = cmpxchg(&sem->count, count, count + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS); I think I simply mis-typed it; shouldn't both cases be RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS ?