Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1526625
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups |
| Date | 2016-11-21 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFVTr-18L-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sEWye-2tW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sEWyf-2tW-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <sFVTr-18L-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:23:44PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/18, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > +static bool __readers_active_check(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > +{
> > + return !(per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) !=0);
> > +}
>
> Hmm,
>
> return per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) == 0;
>
> looks more clear, but this is minor,
Very much so; that must be one of the most convoluted statements
possible :-).
>
> > int __percpu_init_rwsem(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem,
> > const char *name, struct lock_class_key *rwsem_key)
> > {
> > @@ -103,41 +141,11 @@ void __percpu_up_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > __this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
> >
> > /* Prod writer to recheck readers_active */
> > - swake_up(&sem->writer);
> > + if (__readers_active_check(sem))
> > + swake_up(&sem->writer);
>
> Suppose we have 2 active readers which call __percpu_up_read() at the same
> time and the pending writer sleeps.
>
> What guarantees that one of these readers will observe per_cpu_sum() == 0 ?
> They both can read the old value of the remote per-cpu counter, no?
In particular, you're thinking of what provides the guarantee that the
woken CPU observes the same state the wakee saw? Isn't this one of the
Program-Order guarantees the scheduler _should_ provide?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH -tip 0/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: writer-side optimizations Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-18 20:00 +0100
[PATCH 1/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Move text file into Documentation/locking/ Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-18 20:00 +0100
[PATCH 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Replace bulky wait-queues with swait Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-18 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Replace bulky wait-queues with swait Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-11-21 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Replace bulky wait-queues with swait Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-21 18:30 +0100
[PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-18 20:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-11-21 13:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-11-21 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> - 2016-11-22 05:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-11-23 15:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] locking/percpu-rwsem: Avoid unnecessary writer wakeups Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-11-21 13:30 +0100
csiph-web