Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1397258
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount |
| Date | 2016-05-09 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rwYJ4-3ca-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <rwLCa-5YS-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rwNXl-n9-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <rwVLb-f9-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rwW4y-Lb-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rwYzo-2MP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:51:18AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> >>>So I think you're wrong here; imagine this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> rwsem_down_read_failed() rwsem_wake()
> >>> get_task_struct();
> >>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
> >>> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &wait_list);
> >>> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
> >>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
> >>> __rwsem_do_wake()
> >>> while (true) {
> >>> set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> >>> waiter->task = NULL
> >>> if (!waiter.task) // true
> >>> break;
> >>>
> >>> __set_task_state(tsk, TASK_RUNNING);
> >>>
> >>> do_exit();
> >>> wake_up_process(tsk); /* BOOM */
> >>
> >>I may be missing something, but rwsem_down_read_failed() will not return until
> >>after the wakeup is done by the rwsem_wake() thread.
> >
> >The above never gets to schedule(), and even if it did, a spurious
> >wakeup could've happened, no?
>
> Ah indeed, you are most certainly correct. For some reason I was always
> considering schedule() in the picture. Hmm I'll have to think about this
> some more, but given the small chance of a waiter actually seeing the nil
> task at the first iteration I'm wondering if we could just invert the code
> and call schedule() before the task check. Saving the refcounts will serve
> _all_ reader waiters otoh, but this would obviously need numbers...
So with where you're going -- using wake_q, it naturally goes away if
you do:
wake_q_add(&wake_q, tsk);
smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
Because the wake_q already takes a task ref, and we'll not actually
issue the wakeup until after the waiter->task store.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH -tip 0/4] locking/rwsem (xadd): Reader waiter optimizations Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 07:00 +0200
[PATCH 4/4] locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 07:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 4/4] locking/rwsem: Rework zeroing reader waiter->task Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 10:00 +0200
[PATCH 3/4] locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s) Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 07:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s) Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 09:50 +0200
[PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 07:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 18:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 21:10 +0200
[PATCH 1/4] locking/rwsem: Avoid stale ->count for rwsem_down_write_failed() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 07:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/rwsem: Avoid stale ->count for rwsem_down_write_failed() Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> - 2016-05-09 07:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/rwsem: Avoid stale ->count for rwsem_down_write_failed() Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-05-09 09:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/rwsem: Avoid stale ->count for rwsem_down_write_failed() Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-05-09 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH -tip 0/4] locking/rwsem (xadd): Reader waiter optimizations Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com> - 2016-05-10 03:40 +0200
csiph-web