From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
mingo@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com, bristot@redhat.com,
dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove the embedded rwsem
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:28:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <efc4ba6b-b113-b37f-c785-b03df1afc860@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119155826.GA4739@redhat.com>
On 11/19/19 10:58 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/19, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 11/13/19 5:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> +static int percpu_rwsem_wake_function(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry,
>>> + unsigned int mode, int wake_flags,
>>> + void *key)
>>> +{
>>> + struct task_struct *p = get_task_struct(wq_entry->private);
>>> + bool reader = wq_entry->flags & WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM;
>>> + struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem = key;
>>> +
>>> + /* concurrent against percpu_down_write(), can get stolen */
>>> + if (!__percpu_rwsem_trylock(sem, reader))
>>> + return 1;
>>> +
>>> + list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
>>> + smp_store_release(&wq_entry->private, NULL);
>>> +
>>> + wake_up_process(p);
>>> + put_task_struct(p);
>>> +
>>> + return !reader; /* wake 'all' readers and 1 writer */
>>> +}
>>> +
>> If I read the function correctly, you are setting the WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE
>> for both readers and writers and __wake_up() is called with an exclusive
>> count of one. So only one reader or writer is woken up each time.
> This depends on what percpu_rwsem_wake_function() returns. If it returns 1,
> __wake_up_common() stops, exactly because all waiters have WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE.
>
>> However, the comment above said we wake 'all' readers and 1 writer. That
>> doesn't match the actual code, IMO.
> Well, "'all' readers" probably means "all readers before writer",
>
>> To match the comments, you should
>> have set WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE flag only on writer. In this case, you
>> probably don't need WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM to differentiate between readers and
>> writers.
> See above...
>
> note also the
>
> if (!__percpu_rwsem_trylock(sem, reader))
> return 1;
>
> at the start of percpu_rwsem_wake_function(). We want to stop wake_up_common()
> as soon as percpu_rwsem_trylock() fails. Because we know that if it fails once
> it can't succeed later. Although iiuc this can only happen if another (new)
> writer races with __wake_up(&sem->waiters).
>
>
> I guess WQ_FLAG_CUSTOM can be avoided, percpu_rwsem_wait() could do
>
> if (read)
> __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(...);
> else {
> wq_entry.flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> __add_wait_queue(...);
> }
>
> but this is "unfair".
Thanks for the explanation. That clarifies my understanding of the patch.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-19 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-13 10:21 [PATCH 0/5] locking: Percpu-rwsem rewrite Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] locking/percpu-rwsem, lockdep: Make percpu-rwsem use its own lockdep_map Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-15 20:39 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-01-08 1:33 ` [PATCH] locking/percpu-rwsem: Add might_sleep() for writer locking Davidlohr Bueso
2020-01-08 1:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-02-11 12:48 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Davidlohr Bueso
2019-11-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Convert to bool Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Move __this_cpu_inc() into the slowpath Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Extract __percpu_down_read_trylock() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-18 16:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-11-13 10:21 ` [PATCH 5/5] locking/percpu-rwsem: Remove the embedded rwsem Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-18 19:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-11-18 23:19 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-12-17 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-17 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-18 21:52 ` Waiman Long
2019-12-17 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-19 13:50 ` Waiman Long
2019-11-19 15:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-11-19 16:28 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-12-17 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-12-17 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-15 17:14 ` [PATCH 0/5] locking: Percpu-rwsem rewrite Juri Lelli
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=efc4ba6b-b113-b37f-c785-b03df1afc860@redhat.com \
--to=longman@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=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).