From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/16] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:39:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5c869d39-571e-11cb-e9eb-5d785562bfd1@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190417080549.GA4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 04/17/2019 04:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:16:11PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -608,56 +687,63 @@ __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int state)
>>>> */
>>>> waiter.task = current;
>>>> waiter.type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE;
>>>> + waiter.timeout = jiffies + RWSEM_WAIT_TIMEOUT;
>>>>
>>>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>>>>
>>>> /* account for this before adding a new element to the list */
>>>> + wstate = list_empty(&sem->wait_list) ? WRITER_FIRST : WRITER_NOT_FIRST;
>>>>
>>>> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
>>>>
>>>> /* we're now waiting on the lock */
>>>> + if (wstate == WRITER_NOT_FIRST) {
>>>> count = atomic_long_read(&sem->count);
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> + * If there were already threads queued before us and:
>>>> + * 1) there are no no active locks, wake the front
>>>> + * queued process(es) as the handoff bit might be set.
>>>> + * 2) there are no active writers and some readers, the lock
>>>> + * must be read owned; so we try to wake any read lock
>>>> + * waiters that were queued ahead of us.
>>>> */
>>>> + if (!RWSEM_COUNT_LOCKED(count))
>>>> + __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
>>>> + else if (!(count & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK) &&
>>>> + (count & RWSEM_READER_MASK))
>>>> __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS, &wake_q);
>>> Does the above want to be something like:
>>>
>>> if (!(count & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)) {
>>> __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, (count & RWSEM_READER_MASK) ?
>>> RWSEM_WAKE_READERS :
>>> RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
>>> }
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> + else
>>>> + goto wait;
>>>>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The wakeup is normally called _after_ the wait_lock
>>>> + * is released, but given that we are proactively waking
>>>> + * readers we can deal with the wake_q overhead as it is
>>>> + * similar to releasing and taking the wait_lock again
>>>> + * for attempting rwsem_try_write_lock().
>>>> + */
>>>> + wake_up_q(&wake_q);
>>> Hurmph.. the reason we do wake_up_q() outside of wait_lock is such that
>>> those tasks don't bounce on wait_lock. Also, it removes a great deal of
>>> hold-time from wait_lock.
>>>
>>> So I'm not sure I buy your argument here.
>>>
>> Actually, we don't want to release the wait_lock, do wake_up_q() and
>> acquire the wait_lock again as the state would have been changed. I
>> didn't change the comment on this patch, but will reword it to discuss that.
> I don't understand, we've queued ourselves, we're on the list, we're not
> first. How would dropping the lock to try and kick waiters before us be
> a problem?
>
> Sure, once we re-acquire the lock we have to re-avaluate @wstate to see
> if we're first now or not, but we need to do that anyway.
>
> So what is wrong with the below?
>
> --- a/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,11 @@ static inline void wake_q_init(struct wa
> head->lastp = &head->first;
> }
>
> +static inline bool wake_q_empty(struct wake_q_head *head)
> +{
> + return head->first == WAKE_Q_TAIL;
> +}
> +
> extern void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task);
> extern void wake_q_add_safe(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task);
> extern void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head);
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -700,25 +700,22 @@ __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(struct
> * must be read owned; so we try to wake any read lock
> * waiters that were queued ahead of us.
> */
> - if (!(count & RWSEM_LOCKED_MASK))
> - __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
> - else if (!(count & RWSEM_WRITER_MASK) &&
> - (count & RWSEM_READER_MASK))
> - __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READERS, &wake_q);
> - else
> + if (count & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)
> goto wait;
> - /*
> - * The wakeup is normally called _after_ the wait_lock
> - * is released, but given that we are proactively waking
> - * readers we can deal with the wake_q overhead as it is
> - * similar to releasing and taking the wait_lock again
> - * for attempting rwsem_try_write_lock().
> - */
> - wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> - /*
> - * Reinitialize wake_q after use.
> - */
> - wake_q_init(&wake_q);
> +
> + __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, (count & RWSEM_READER_MASK) ?
> + RWSEM_WAKE_READERS :
> + RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
> +
> + if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q)) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> + wake_up_q(&wake_q);
> + /* used again, reinit */
> + wake_q_init(&wake_q);
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> + if (rwsem_waiter_is_first(sem, &waiter))
> + wstate = WRITER_FIRST;
> + }
> } else {
> count = atomic_long_add_return(RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS, &sem->count);
> }
Yes, we can certainly do that. My point is that I haven't changed the
existing logic regarding that wakeup, I only move it around in the
patch. As it is not related to lock handoff, we can do it as a separate
patch.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 112+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-13 17:22 [PATCH v4 00/16] locking/rwsem: Rwsem rearchitecture part 2 Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 01/16] locking/rwsem: Prevent unneeded warning during locking selftest Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:04 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 02/16] locking/rwsem: Make owner available even if !CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 03/16] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 04/16] locking/rwsem: Implement a new locking scheme Waiman Long
2019-04-16 13:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 13:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 14:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 05/16] locking/rwsem: Merge rwsem.h and rwsem-xadd.c into rwsem.c Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 06/16] locking/rwsem: Code cleanup after files merging Waiman Long
2019-04-16 16:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 19:45 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 07/16] locking/rwsem: Implement lock handoff to prevent lock starvation Waiman Long
2019-04-16 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 20:26 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 21:07 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:22 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 15:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-16 18:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 18:16 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-16 18:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 7:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:39 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-04-18 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 08/16] locking/rwsem: Make rwsem_spin_on_owner() return owner state Waiman Long
2019-04-17 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:42 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 16:53 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 12:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:29 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:50 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 09/16] locking/rwsem: Ensure an RT task will not spin on reader Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 18:47 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 13:27 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 10/16] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers in wait queue Waiman Long
2019-04-16 16:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-04-16 17:37 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:16 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 11/16] locking/rwsem: Enable readers spinning on writer Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:34 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:45 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 13:40 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-17 14:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-17 17:51 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 9:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:37 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 12/16] locking/rwsem: Enable time-based spinning on reader-owned rwsem Waiman Long
2019-04-18 13:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 15:15 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 14:33 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 15:36 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 13/16] locking/rwsem: Add more rwsem owner access helpers Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Waiman Long
2019-04-18 13:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:08 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-18 14:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:54 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-19 10:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 12:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-19 19:39 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-21 21:07 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 14:31 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 16:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-23 19:12 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 19:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 19:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-23 19:55 ` [PATCH] bpf: Fix preempt_enable_no_resched() abuse Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 20:03 ` [PATCH] trace: " Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 23:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-29 6:39 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-29 13:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-04-29 14:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-04-23 20:27 ` [PATCH] bpf: " Linus Torvalds
2019-04-23 20:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-23 20:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-24 13:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-25 21:23 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-04-26 7:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 7:09 ` [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 16:49 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-24 17:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-24 17:10 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-24 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 15/16] locking/rwsem: Merge owner into count on x86-64 Waiman Long
2019-04-18 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-04-18 14:40 ` Waiman Long
2019-04-13 17:22 ` [PATCH v4 16/16] locking/rwsem: Remove redundant computation of writer lock word 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=5c869d39-571e-11cb-e9eb-5d785562bfd1@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com \
--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).