Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1617848
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock |
| Date | 2017-04-06 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ttcPV-7fO-37@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <ttbh9-6aP-61@gated-at.bofh.it> <ttbqO-6ei-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:46:16AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > +/* > + * Range/interval rw-locking > + * ------------------------- > + * > + * An interval tree of locked and to-be-locked ranges is kept. When a new range > + * lock is requested, we add its interval to the tree and store number of > + * intervals intersecting it to 'blocking_ranges'. You're again confusing semantics with implementation here. > For the reader case, > + * 'blocking_ranges' is only accounted for if the intersecting range is > + * marked as a writer. To achieve mutual exclusion of arbitrary ranges, we > + * guarantee that task is blocked until there are no overlapping ranges in the > + * tree. > + * > + * When a range is unlocked, we again walk intervals that overlap with the > + * unlocked one and decrement their 'blocking_ranges'. Naturally, we wake up > + * owner of any range lock whose 'blocking_ranges' drops to 0. Wakeup order > + * therefore relies on the order of the interval tree -- as opposed to a > + * more traditional fifo mechanism. Which order is that? (I could of course go read the interval tree code, but it shouldn't be too much effort to mention it here). > There is no lock stealing either, which > + * prevents starvation and guarantees fairness. So no lock stealing has always been very bad for performance. So are you sure people will not frob this back in? > +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGE_RWLOCK_H Still don't like the name... rwlock_t is a spinlock.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 -tip 0/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
[PATCH 6/6] staging/lustre: Use generic range rwlock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 6/6] staging/lustre: Use generic range rwlock "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com> - 2017-04-07 12:10 +0200
[PATCH 4/6] locking/locktorture: Fix num reader/writer corner cases Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
[PATCH 1/6] interval-tree: Build unconditionally Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
[PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-06 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2017-04-06 19:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-04-06 12:30 +0200
csiph-web