Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Nov 2010 21:00:17 +0800 | From | Yong Zhang <> | Subject | Re: Kernel rwlock design, Multicore and IGMP |
| |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:18:18PM +0800, Américo Wang wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:09:45PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:27:54AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>>Le vendredi 12 novembre 2010 à 15:13 +0800, Américo Wang a écrit : > >>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:32:59AM +0800, Cypher Wu wrote: > >>>> >On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >> Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 à 21:49 +0800, Cypher Wu a écrit : > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Hi > >>>> >> > >>>> >> CC netdev, since you ask questions about network stuff _and_ rwlock > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >>> I'm using TILEPro and its rwlock in kernel is a liitle different than > >>>> >>> other platforms. It have a priority for write lock that when tried it > >>>> >>> will block the following read lock even if read lock is hold by > >>>> >>> others. Its code can be read in Linux Kernel 2.6.36 in > >>>> >>> arch/tile/lib/spinlock_32.c. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> This seems a bug to me. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> read_lock() can be nested. We used such a schem in the past in iptables > >>>> >> (it can re-enter itself), > >>>> >> and we used instead a spinlock(), but with many discussions with lkml > >>>> >> and Linus himself if I remember well. > >>>> >> > >>>> >It seems not a problem that read_lock() can be nested or not since > >>>> >rwlock doesn't have 'owner', it's just that should we give > >>>> >write_lock() a priority than read_lock() since if there have a lot > >>>> >read_lock()s then they'll starve write_lock(). > >>>> >We should work out a well defined behavior so all the > >>>> >platform-dependent raw_rwlock has to design under that principle. > >>>> > >>> > >>>AFAIK, Lockdep allows read_lock() to be nested. > >>> > >>>> It is a known weakness of rwlock, it is designed like that. :) > >>>> > >>> > >>>Agreed. > >>> > >> > >> Just for record, both Tile and X86 implement rwlock with a write-bias, > >> this somewhat reduces the write-starvation problem. > > > >Are you sure(on x86)? > > > >It seems that we never realize writer-bias rwlock. > > > > Try > > % grep RW_LOCK_BIAS -nr arch/x86 > > *And* read the code to see how it works. :)
If read_lock()/write_lock() fails, the subtracted value(1 for read_lock() and RW_LOCK_BIAS for write_lock()) is added back. So reader and writer will contend on the same lock fairly.
And RW_LOCK_BIAS based rwlock is a variant of sighed-test rwlock, so it works in the same way to highest-bit-set mode rwlock.
Seem you're cheated by it's name(RW_LOCK_BIAS). :) Or am I missing something?
Thanks, Yong
> > Note, on Tile, it uses a little different algorithm. -- 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/
| |