From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753574AbcFOV51 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:57:27 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:38416 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751921AbcFOV5X (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:57:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 23:57:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-tip v2 5/6] locking/rwsem: Change RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS
 for better disambiguation
Message-ID: <20160615215716.GX30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1465944489-43440-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <1465944489-43440-6-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <20160615174348.GT30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5761AD27.9020106@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5761AD27.9020106@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 03:31:51PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 01:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:48:08PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>even the reduced maximum of about 16k (32-bit) or 1G (64-bit) should
> >>be more than enough for the foreseeable future.
> >So what happens if I manage to create 16k+ threads on my 32bit kernel
> >and get them all to do mmap() or so at the same time.
> >
> >That doesn't seem too far fetched.
> >
> >Then again, with double that (the current limit) that doesn't seem
> >impossible either.
> 
> To hit the limit, we need to have all the threads calling down_write() at
> exactly the same instance in time which, I think, is pretty hard to do.
> Also, I don't believe you will ever see a 16k-cpu massive SMP system running
> on 32-bit kernel. I can imagine such a system running on 64-bit kernel, but
> certainly not 32-bit.

Ah, so I thought we kept the WRITE_BIAS while blocking, which we don't.

But if they all get preempted before we undo the WRITE_BIAS then 1 CPU
will be able to trigger this. However utterly unlikely.