public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:08:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <541898C7.6070508@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1410894118.2447.4.camel@j-VirtualBox>

Hi Jason,

On 09/16/2014 03:01 PM, Jason Low wrote:
> Commit 9b0fc9c09f1b checks for if there are known active lockers in
> order to avoid write trylocking using expensive cmpxchg() when it
> likely wouldn't get the lock.
> 
> However, a subsequent patch was added such that we directly check for
> sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS right before trying that cmpxchg().
> Thus, commit 9b0fc9c09f1b now just adds extra overhead. This patch
> deletes it.

It would be better to just not reload sem->count, and check the parameter
count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS instead. The count parameter is a very recent
load of sem->count (one of which is the latest exclusive read from an
atomic operation), so likely to be just as accurate as a reload of
sem->count without causing more cache line contention.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

> Also, add a comment on why we do an "extra check" of sem->count before
> the cmpxchg().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c |   24 +++++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> index d6203fa..63d3ef2 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
> @@ -247,18 +247,20 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	return sem;
>  }
>  
> -static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  {
> -	if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK)) {
> -		/* try acquiring the write lock */
> -		if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> -		    cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> -			    RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> -			if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> -				rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> -			return true;
> -		}
> +	/*
> +	 * Try acquiring the write lock. Check sem->count first
> +	 * in order to reduce unnecessary expensive cmpxchg() operations.
> +	 */
> +	if (sem->count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS &&
> +	    cmpxchg(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> +		    RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) {
> +		if (!list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list))
> +			rwsem_atomic_update(RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, sem);
> +		return true;
>  	}
> +
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> @@ -446,7 +448,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
>  	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  	while (true) {
> -		if (rwsem_try_write_lock(count, sem))
> +		if (rwsem_try_write_lock(sem))
>  			break;
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>  
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-16 20:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-16 19:01 [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Avoid double checking before try acquiring write lock Jason Low
2014-09-16 20:08 ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2014-09-16 20:51   ` Tim Chen
2014-09-16 22:01   ` Jason Low

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=541898C7.6070508@hurleysoftware.com \
    --to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@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