From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 06/12] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:08:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <114e3bc3-3b66-4a50-d422-6a477d85fa72@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190410165013.njy5bg32pxq6syyr@linux-r8p5>
On 04/10/2019 12:50 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> When the front of the wait queue is a reader, other readers
>> immediately following the first reader will also be woken up at the
>> same time. However, if there is a writer in between. Those readers
>> behind the writer will not be woken up.
>>
>> Because of optimistic spinning, the lock acquisition order is not FIFO
>> anyway. The lock handoff mechanism will ensure that lock starvation
>> will not happen.
>>
>> Assuming that the lock hold times of the other readers still in the
>> queue will be about the same as the readers that are being woken up,
>> there is really not much additional cost other than the additional
>> latency due to the wakeup of additional tasks by the waker. Therefore
>> all the readers up to a maximum of 256 in the queue are woken up when
>> the first waiter is a reader to improve reader throughput.
>
> Before we stopped waking readers when a writer was encountered but
> would otherwise wakeup _all_ readers. I don't understand why you want
> to limit this to MAX_READERS_WAKEUP, otherwise I agree it's nice to
> skip the writer and continue waking readers in the queue (with the
> handoff
> guarantees obviously).
>
> Would it not be better to do the MAX_READERS_WAKEUP limit only when
> a writer is found?
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
There are 2 major reasons why there is a limit.
1) It will be unfair to the task that needs to spend so much of its own
CPU time to wake up too many readers.
2) I want to avoid the extreme case that there are more than 32k readers
in the wait queue and make the count overflow.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-10 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-05 19:21 [PATCH-tip v2 00/12] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 01/12] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 02/12] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation Waiman Long
2019-04-10 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 15:28 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-10 15:29 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 18:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-11 2:25 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-11 7:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 03/12] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Waiman Long
2019-04-10 18:38 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 04/12] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return owner state Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 05/12] locking/rwsem: Ensure an RT task will not spin on reader Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 06/12] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue Waiman Long
2019-04-10 16:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:08 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-04-10 17:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-10 17:54 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-10 17:53 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 07/12] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 08/12] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on reader-owned rwsem Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 09/12] locking/rwsem: Add more rwsem owner access helpers Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 10/12] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 11/12] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64 Waiman Long
2019-04-05 19:21 ` [PATCH-tip v2 12/12] locking/rwsem: Remove redundant computation of writer lock word Waiman Long
2019-04-05 23:27 ` [PATCH-tip v2 00/12] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Linus Torvalds
2019-04-10 10:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-10 12:38 ` Waiman Long
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=114e3bc3-3b66-4a50-d422-6a477d85fa72@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).