On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:34:40PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> The qrwlock slowpaths involve spinning when either a prospective reader
> is waiting for a concurrent writer to drain, or a prospective writer is
> waiting for concurrent readers to drain. In both of these situations,
> atomic_cond_read_acquire can be used to avoid busy-waiting and make use
> of any backoff functionality provided by the architecture.
> 
> This patch replaces the open-code loops and rspin_until_writer_unlock
> implementation with atomic_cond_read_acquire. The write mode transition
> zero to _QW_WAITING is left alone, since (a) this doesn't need acquire
> semantics and (b) should be fast.
> 
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 47 +++++++++++------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> index 1af791e37348..b7ea4647c74d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> @@ -24,23 +24,6 @@
>  #include <asm/qrwlock.h>
>  
>  /**
> - * rspin_until_writer_unlock - inc reader count & spin until writer is gone
> - * @lock  : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> - * @writer: Current queue rwlock writer status byte
> - *
> - * In interrupt context or at the head of the queue, the reader will just
> - * increment the reader count & wait until the writer releases the lock.
> - */
> -static __always_inline void
> -rspin_until_writer_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
> -{
> -	while ((cnts & _QW_WMASK) == _QW_LOCKED) {
> -		cpu_relax();
> -		cnts = atomic_read_acquire(&lock->cnts);
> -	}
> -}
> -
> -/**
>   * queued_read_lock_slowpath - acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
>   * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
>   * @cnts: Current qrwlock lock value
> @@ -53,13 +36,12 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)

So the second parameter(@cnts) could be removed entirely, right?
Any reason we still keep it?

Regards,
Boqun

>  	if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
>  		/*
>  		 * Readers in interrupt context will get the lock immediately
> -		 * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet).
> -		 * The rspin_until_writer_unlock() function returns immediately
> -		 * in this case. Otherwise, they will spin (with ACQUIRE
> -		 * semantics) until the lock is available without waiting in
> -		 * the queue.
> +		 * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet),
> +		 * so spin with ACQUIRE semantics until the lock is available
> +		 * without waiting in the queue.
>  		 */
> -		rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
> +		atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, (VAL & _QW_WMASK)
> +					 != _QW_LOCKED);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  	atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
> @@ -68,14 +50,14 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, u32 cnts)
>  	 * Put the reader into the wait queue
>  	 */
>  	arch_spin_lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> +	atomic_add(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * The ACQUIRE semantics of the following spinning code ensure
>  	 * that accesses can't leak upwards out of our subsequent critical
>  	 * section in the case that the lock is currently held for write.
>  	 */
> -	cnts = atomic_fetch_add_acquire(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
> -	rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
> +	atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, (VAL & _QW_WMASK) != _QW_LOCKED);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Signal the next one in queue to become queue head
[...]