From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:26:31 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sgi9rklk.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whYQqtW6B7oPmPr9-PXwyqUneF4sSFE+o3=7QcENstE-g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3072 bytes --]
On Sat, Mar 14 2020, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:31 PM NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> The idea of list_del_init_release() and list_empty_acquire() is growing
>> on me though. See below.
>
> This does look like a promising approach.
Thanks.
>
> However:
>
>> + if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL &&
>> + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests) &&
>> + list_empty_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocked_member))
>> + return status;
>
> This does not seem sensible to me.
>
> The thing is, the whole point about "acquire" semantics is that it
> should happen _first_ - because a load-with-acquire only orders things
> _after_ it.
Agreed.
>
> So testing some other non-locked state before testing the load-acquire
> state makes little sense: it means that the other tests you do are
> fundamentally unordered and nonsensical in an unlocked model.
>
> So _if_ those other tests matter (do they?), then they should be after
> the acquire test (because they test things that on the writer side are
> set before the "store-release"). Otherwise you're testing random
> state.
>
> And if they don't matter, then they shouldn't exist at all.
The ->fl_blocker == NULL test isn't needed. It is effectively equivalent
to the list_empty(fl_blocked_member) test.
The fl_blocked_requests test *is* needed (because a tree is dismantled
from the root to the leaves, so it stops being a member while it still
holds other requests). I didn't think the ordering mattered all that
much but having pondered it again I see that it does.
>
> IOW, if you depend on ordering, then the _only_ ordering that exists is:
>
> - writer side: writes done _before_ the smp_store_release() are visible
>
> - to the reader side done _after_ the smp_load_acquire()
>
> and absolutely no other ordering exists or makes sense to test for.
>
> That limited ordering guarantee is why a store-release -> load-acquire
> is fundamentally cheaper than any other serialization.
>
> So the optimistic "I don't need to do anything" case should start ouf with
>
> if (list_empty_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocked_member)) {
>
> and go from there. Does it actually need to do anything else at all?
> But if it does need to check the other fields, they should be checked
> after that acquire.
So it should be
if (list_empty_acquire(&wait->fl_blocked_member) &&
list_empty_acquire(&wait->fl_blocked_requests))
return status;
And because that second list_empty_acquire() is on the list head, and
pairs with a list_del_init_release() on a list member, I would need to
fix the __list_del() part to be
next->prev = prev;
smp_store_release(prev->next, next)
>
> Also, it worries me that the comment talks about "if fl_blocker is
> NULL". But it realy now is that fl_blocked_member list being empty
> that is the real serialization test, adn that's the one that the
> comment should primarily talk about.
Yes, I see that now. Thanks.
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-16 4:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-08 14:03 [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression kernel test robot
2020-03-09 14:36 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 15:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-09 17:22 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:09 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:53 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 21:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-09 21:58 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 7:52 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-09 22:11 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 3:24 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 7:54 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-10 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 14:18 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 15:06 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 17:27 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:01 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:14 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:21 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-10 22:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-11 22:22 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 0:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-12 4:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 12:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 22:19 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 1:11 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-14 1:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-14 2:31 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-15 13:54 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 5:06 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-16 11:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-17 1:41 ` yangerkun
2020-03-17 14:05 ` yangerkun
2020-03-17 16:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-18 1:09 ` yangerkun
2020-03-19 17:51 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 19:24 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 22:45 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-17 15:59 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-17 21:27 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-18 5:12 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-16 4:26 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2020-03-11 1:57 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-11 13:26 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 22:15 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 7:50 ` kernel test robot
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=87sgi9rklk.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
/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).