Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/qrwlock: Reduce reader/writer to reader lock transfer latency

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/qrwlock: Reduce reader/writer to reader lock transfer latency
Date	2015-07-07 13:20 +0200
Message-ID	<pJz4S-4Y0-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<pJgOE-1MK-63@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJgYi-1Ql-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJjjr-3ow-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJkyR-45h-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <pJxcK-3O3-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 10:17:11AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Thinking about it, can we kill _QW_WAITING altogether and set (cmpxchg
> > > from 0) wmode to _QW_LOCKED in the write_lock slowpath, polling (acquire)
> > > rmode until it hits zero?
> > 
> > No, this is how we make the lock fair so that an incoming streams of 
> > later readers won't block a writer from getting the lock.
> 
> But won't those readers effectively see that the lock is held for write
> (because we set wmode to _QW_LOCKED before the existing reader had drained)
> and therefore fall down the slow-path and get held up on the spinlock?

Yes, that's the entire point. Once there's a writer pending, new readers
should queue too.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/qrwlock: Reduce reader/writer to reader lock  transfer latency Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-07-07 13:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/qrwlock: Reduce reader/writer to reader lock  transfer latency Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2015-07-07 19:30 +0200

csiph-web