From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v7 00/20] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 19:19:08 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <553acf73-e2c4-b094-e088-d53cc7ab9239@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f8fd44d-1962-e309-49b5-bb16fd662312@redhat.com>
On 4/28/19 7:12 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/28/19 6:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> This doesn't seem to be the full diff - looking at that patch 1 you
>> seem to have taken my suggested list_cut_before() change too.
>>
>> I'm not against it (it does seem to be simpler and better), I just
>> hope you double-checked it, since I kind of hand-waved it.
>>
>> Linus
> I implemented your suggestion in patch 1 as it will produce simpler and
> faster code. However, one of the changes in my patchset is to wake up
> all the readers in the wait list. This means I have to jump over the
> writers and wake up the readers behind them as well. See patch 11 for
> details. As a result, I have to revert back to use list_add_tail() and
> list_for_each_entry_safe() for the first pass. That is why the diff for
> the whole patchset is just the below change. It is done on purpose, not
> an omission.
That is also the reason why it was implemented this way in my v6
patchset. I implemented the fix on top of the rwsem patchset first and
then move it backward to the beginning of the patchset for easier backport.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-28 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-28 21:25 [PATCH-tip v7 00/20] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 01/20] locking/rwsem: Prevent decrement of reader count before increment Waiman Long
2019-05-03 12:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 13:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-05-07 7:07 ` [tip:locking/urgent] " tip-bot for Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 02/20] locking/rwsem: Make owner available even if !CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 03/20] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 04/20] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 05/20] locking/rwsem: Merge rwsem.h and rwsem-xadd.c into rwsem.c Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 06/20] locking/rwsem: Code cleanup after files merging Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 07/20] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return owner state Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 08/20] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation Waiman Long
2019-05-03 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 13:57 ` Waiman Long
2019-05-03 14:37 ` David Laight
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 09/20] locking/rwsem: Always release wait_lock before waking up tasks Waiman Long
2019-05-03 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 13:56 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 10/20] locking/rwsem: More optimal RT task handling of null owner Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 11/20] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue Waiman Long
2019-05-03 16:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 17:15 ` Waiman Long
2019-05-06 11:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 12/20] locking/rwsem: Clarify usage of owner's nonspinaable bit Waiman Long
2019-05-03 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 15:26 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 13/20] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 14/20] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on reader-owned rwsem Waiman Long
2019-05-06 15:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 15/20] locking/rwsem: Adaptive disabling of reader optimistic spinning Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 16/20] locking/rwsem: Add more rwsem owner access helpers Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 17/20] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 18/20] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64 Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 19/20] locking/rwsem: Remove redundant computation of writer lock word Waiman Long
2019-04-28 21:25 ` [PATCH-tip v7 20/20] locking/rwsem: Disable preemption in down_read*() if owner in count Waiman Long
2019-04-28 22:46 ` [PATCH-tip v7 00/20] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Linus Torvalds
2019-04-28 23:12 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-28 23:19 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-04-29 0:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-29 0:27 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-29 2:41 ` Linus Torvalds
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=553acf73-e2c4-b094-e088-d53cc7ab9239@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@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