From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, bristot@redhat.com,
longman@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/percpu_rwsem: Rewrite to not use rwsem
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:56:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190807095657.GA24112@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806171515.GR2349@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:17:42PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > but this will also wake all the pending readers up. Every reader will burn
> > CPU for no reason and likely delay the writer.
> >
> > In fact I'm afraid this can lead to live-lock, because every reader in turn
> > will call __percpu_up_read().
>
> I didn't really consider that case important; because of how heavy the
> write side is, it should be relatively rare.
Well yes, but down_read() should not stress the system.
However I was wrong, it is not that bad as I thought, I forgot that the
pending reader won't return from wait_event(sem->block) if another reader
comes.
Still I think we should try to avoid the unnecessary wakeups. See below.
> > How about 2 wait queues?
>
> That said, I can certainly try that.
and either way, with or without 2 queues, what do you think about the code
below?
This way the new reader does wake_up() only in the very unlikely case when
it races with the new writer which sets sem->block = 1 right after
this_cpu_inc().
Oleg.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
static inline void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
might_sleep();
rwsem_acquire_read(&sem->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
preempt_disable();
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
else
__percpu_down_read(sem, false);
preempt_enable();
}
static inline void percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
preempt_disable();
if (likely(rcu_sync_is_idle(&sem->rss)))
__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
else
__percpu_up_read(sem);
preempt_enable();
}
// both called and return with preemption disabled
bool __percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem, bool try)
{
if (atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)) {
again:
preempt_enable();
__wait_event(sem->waiters, !atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block));
preempt_disable();
}
__this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
smp_mb();
if (likely(!atomic_read_acquire(&sem->block)))
return true;
__percpu_up_read(sem);
if (try)
return false;
goto again;
}
void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
{
smp_mb();
__this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
wake_up(&sem->waiters);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 9:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-05 14:02 [PATCH] locking/percpu_rwsem: Rewrite to not use rwsem Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-05 14:43 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-05 14:58 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-05 15:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-06 14:15 ` Boqun Feng
2019-08-06 16:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-08-06 17:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-07 9:56 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-10-29 18:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 14:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-10-30 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 17:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 18:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 19:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-31 6:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-07 14:45 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-29 19:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-30 15:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-10-30 16:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20190807095657.GA24112@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will.deacon@kernel.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.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