linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: longman@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] locking/rwsem: Minor code refactoring in rwsem_mark_wake()
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 13:26:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230223123319.367721619@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20230223122642.491637862@infradead.org

From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Rename "oldcount" to "count" as it is not always old count value.
Also make some minor code refactoring to reduce indentation. There
is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230216210933.1169097-2-longman@redhat.com
---
 kernel/locking/rwsem.c |   44 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
  *
  * When the rwsem is reader-owned and a spinning writer has timed out,
  * the nonspinnable bit will be set to disable optimistic spinning.
-
+ *
  * When a writer acquires a rwsem, it puts its task_struct pointer
  * into the owner field. It is cleared after an unlock.
  *
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
 			    struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
 {
 	struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, *tmp;
-	long oldcount, woken = 0, adjustment = 0;
+	long count, woken = 0, adjustment = 0;
 	struct list_head wlist;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&sem->wait_lock);
@@ -424,22 +424,23 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
 	 */
 	waiter = rwsem_first_waiter(sem);
 
-	if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) {
-		if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
-			/*
-			 * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
-			 * Until the task is actually later awoken later by
-			 * the caller, other writers are able to steal it.
-			 * Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
-			 * will notice the queued writer.
-			 */
-			wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
-			lockevent_inc(rwsem_wake_writer);
-		}
+	if (waiter->type != RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
+		goto wake_readers;
 
-		return;
+	if (wake_type == RWSEM_WAKE_ANY) {
+		/*
+		 * Mark writer at the front of the queue for wakeup.
+		 * Until the task is actually later awoken later by
+		 * the caller, other writers are able to steal it.
+		 * Readers, on the other hand, will block as they
+		 * will notice the queued writer.
+		 */
+		wake_q_add(wake_q, waiter->task);
+		lockevent_inc(rwsem_wake_writer);
 	}
+	return;
 
+wake_readers:
 	/*
 	 * No reader wakeup if there are too many of them already.
 	 */
@@ -455,15 +456,15 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
 		struct task_struct *owner;
 
 		adjustment = RWSEM_READER_BIAS;
-		oldcount = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
-		if (unlikely(oldcount & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK)) {
+		count = atomic_long_fetch_add(adjustment, &sem->count);
+		if (unlikely(count & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK)) {
 			/*
 			 * When we've been waiting "too" long (for writers
 			 * to give up the lock), request a HANDOFF to
 			 * force the issue.
 			 */
 			if (time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
-				if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)) {
+				if (!(count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)) {
 					adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
 					lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
 				}
@@ -524,21 +525,21 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
 	adjustment = woken * RWSEM_READER_BIAS - adjustment;
 	lockevent_cond_inc(rwsem_wake_reader, woken);
 
-	oldcount = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
+	count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
 	if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
 		/*
 		 * Combined with list_move_tail() above, this implies
 		 * rwsem_del_waiter().
 		 */
 		adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS;
-		if (oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)
+		if (count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)
 			adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
 	} else if (woken) {
 		/*
 		 * When we've woken a reader, we no longer need to force
 		 * writers to give up the lock and we can clear HANDOFF.
 		 */
-		if (oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)
+		if (count & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF)
 			adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
 	}
 
@@ -844,7 +845,6 @@ static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct
 		 * Try to acquire the lock
 		 */
 		taken = rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(sem);
-
 		if (taken)
 			break;
 



  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-23 12:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-23 12:26 [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 2/6] locking/rwsem: Enforce queueing when HANDOFF Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 3/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 21:38   ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 12:00     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 21:31       ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 11:59   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 15:04   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 16:51     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27  0:22       ` Waiman Long
2023-02-27 10:31         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-27 20:16           ` Waiman Long
2023-03-20  8:12             ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-20 17:36               ` Waiman Long
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 4/6] locking/rwsem: Split out rwsem_reader_wake() Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 5/6] locking/rwsem: Unify wait loop Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 19:31   ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-24  1:33     ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-26 12:01       ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-26 18:22         ` Boqun Feng
2023-02-23 22:45   ` Waiman Long
2023-02-26 16:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-23 12:26 ` [PATCH 6/6] locking/rwsem: Use the force Peter Zijlstra
2023-02-24  1:19 ` [PATCH 0/6] locking/rwsem: Rework writer wakeup and handoff Waiman Long
2023-02-24 11:55   ` Jiri Wiesner

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=20230223123319.367721619@infradead.org \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@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).