From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
To: Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: do not do lock handoff in percpu_up_write
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:20:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240127112039.896-1-hdanton@sina.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xm26sf2j3k1g.fsf@google.com>
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 12:40:43 -0800 Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>
>
> I'm fine with "no, fairness is more important than these performance
> numbers or mitigating already-sorta-broken situations", but it's not
Fine too because your patch is never able to escape standing ovation.
And feel free to specify the broken situations you saw.
> clear to me you've even understood the patch, because you keep only
> talking about completely different forms of starvation, and suggesting
Given woken writer in your reply and sem->ww is write waiters, there is
only one starvation in this thread.
|> >> My patch makes the entire #4 available to writers (or new readers), so
|> >> that the woken writer will instead get to run immediately. This is
> changes that would if anything make the situation worse.
I mitigate the starvation by making use of the known method without
any heuristic added, though, I am happy to see why it no longer works.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-27 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-22 22:59 [RFC PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: do not do lock handoff in percpu_up_write Benjamin Segall
2024-01-23 15:05 ` Hillf Danton
2024-01-24 22:10 ` Benjamin Segall
2024-01-25 11:04 ` Hillf Danton
2024-01-25 21:08 ` Benjamin Segall
2024-01-26 12:22 ` Hillf Danton
2024-01-26 20:40 ` Benjamin Segall
2024-01-27 11:20 ` Hillf Danton [this message]
2024-01-29 20:36 ` Benjamin Segall
2024-01-30 11:41 ` Hillf Danton
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=20240127112039.896-1-hdanton@sina.com \
--to=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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