lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:17:17PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> This patch introduces a new read/write lock implementation that put
> waiting readers and writers into a queue instead of actively contending
> the lock like the current read/write lock implementation. This will
> improve performance in highly contended situation by reducing the
> cache line bouncing effect.
>
> The queue read/write lock (qrwlock) is mostly fair with respect to
> the writers, even though there is still a slight chance of write
> lock stealing.
>
> Externally, there are two different types of readers - unfair (the
> default) and fair. A unfair reader will try to steal read lock even
> if a writer is waiting, whereas a fair reader will be waiting in
> the queue under this circumstance. These variants are chosen at
> initialization time by using different initializers. The new *_fair()
> initializers are added for selecting the use of fair reader.
>
> Internally, there is a third type of readers which steal lock more
> aggressively than the unfair reader. They simply increments the reader
> count and wait until the writer releases the lock. The transition to
> aggressive reader happens in the read lock slowpath when
> 1. In an interrupt context.
> 2. when a classic reader comes to the head of the wait queue.
> 3. When a fair reader comes to the head of the wait queue and sees
> the release of a write lock.
>
> The fair queue rwlock is more deterministic in the sense that late
> comers jumping ahead and stealing the lock is unlikely even though
> there is still a very small chance for lock stealing to happen if
> the readers or writers come at the right moment. Other than that,
> lock granting is done in a FIFO manner. As a result, it is possible
> to determine a maximum time period after which the waiting is over
> and the lock can be acquired.
>
> The queue read lock is safe to use in an interrupt context (softirq
> or hardirq) as it will switch to become an aggressive reader in such
> environment allowing recursive read lock. However, the fair readers
> will not support recursive read lock in a non-interrupt environment
> when a writer is waiting.
>
> The only downside of queue rwlock is the size increase in the lock
> structure by 4 bytes for 32-bit systems and by 12 bytes for 64-bit
> systems.
>
> This patch will replace the architecture specific implementation
> of rwlock by this generic version of queue rwlock when the
> ARCH_QUEUE_RWLOCK configuration parameter is set.
>
> In term of single-thread performance (no contention), a 256K
> lock/unlock loop was run on a 2.4GHz and 2.93Ghz Westmere x86-64
> CPUs. The following table shows the average time (in ns) for a single
> lock/unlock sequence (including the looping and timing overhead):
>
> Lock Type 2.4GHz 2.93GHz
> --------- ------ -------
> Ticket spinlock 14.9 12.3
> Read lock 17.0 13.5
> Write lock 17.0 13.5
> Queue read lock 16.0 13.5
> Queue fair read lock 16.0 13.5
> Queue write lock 9.2 7.8
> Queue fair write lock 17.5 14.5
>
> The queue read lock is slightly slower than the spinlock, but is
> slightly faster than the read lock. The queue write lock, however,
> is the fastest of all. It is almost twice as fast as the write lock
> and about 1.5X of the spinlock. The queue fair write lock, on the
> other hand, is slightly slower than the write lock.
>
> With lock contention, the speed of each individual lock/unlock function
> is less important than the amount of contention-induced delays.
>
> To investigate the performance characteristics of the queue rwlock
> compared with the regular rwlock, Ingo's anon_vmas patch that convert
> rwsem to rwlock was applied to a 3.12-rc2 kernel. This kernel was
> then tested under the following 4 conditions:
>
> 1) Plain 3.12-rc2
> 2) Ingo's patch
> 3) Ingo's patch + unfair qrwlock (default)
> 4) Ingo's patch + fair qrwlock
>
> The jobs per minutes (JPM) results of the AIM7's high_systime workload
> at 1500 users on a 8-socket 80-core DL980 (HT off) were:
>
> Kernel JPM %Change from (1)
> ------ --- ----------------
> 1 148265 -
> 2 238715 +61%
> 3 242048 +63%
> 4 234881 +58%
>
> The use of unfair qrwlock provides a small boost of 2%, while using
> fair qrwlock leads to 3% decrease of performance. However, looking
> at the perf profiles, we can clearly see that other bottlenecks were
> constraining the performance improvement.
>
> Perf profile of kernel (2):
>
> 18.20% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __write_lock_failed
> 9.36% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 2.91% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock
> 2.73% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] anon_vma_interval_tree_insert
> 2.23% ls [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 1.29% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __read_lock_failed
> 1.21% true [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 1.14% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] zap_pte_range
> 1.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 1.04% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
>
> Perf profile of kernel (3):
>
> 10.57% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 7.98% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] queue_write_lock_slowpath
> 5.83% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock
> 2.86% ls [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 2.71% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] anon_vma_interval_tree_insert
> 1.52% true [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 1.51% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] queue_read_lock_slowpath
> 1.35% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
> 1.12% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] zap_pte_range
> 1.06% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] perf_event_aux_ctx
> 1.01% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] perf_event_aux

But wouldn't kernel (4) be the one that was the most highly constrained?

(That said, yes, I get that _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() is some lock that
is unrelated to the qrwlock.)

> Tim Chen also tested the qrwlock with Ingo's patch on a 4-socket
> machine. It was found the performance improvement of 11% was the
> same with regular rwlock or queue rwlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>

Some memory-barrier issues with additional commentary below.

Thanx, Paul

> ---
> include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h | 256 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/Kconfig.locks | 7 +
> lib/Makefile | 1 +
> lib/qrwlock.c | 247 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 511 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> create mode 100644 lib/qrwlock.c
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..78ad4a5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/qrwlock.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
> +/*
> + * Queue read/write lock
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> + * (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * (C) Copyright 2013 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
> + *
> + * Authors: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
> + */
> +#ifndef __ASM_GENERIC_QRWLOCK_H
> +#define __ASM_GENERIC_QRWLOCK_H
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <asm/bitops.h>
> +#include <asm/cmpxchg.h>
> +#include <asm/barrier.h>
> +#include <asm/processor.h>
> +#include <asm/byteorder.h>
> +
> +#if !defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN) && !defined(__BIG_ENDIAN)
> +#error "Missing either LITTLE_ENDIAN or BIG_ENDIAN definition."
> +#endif
> +
> +#if (CONFIG_NR_CPUS < 65536)
> +typedef u16 __nrcpu_t;
> +typedef u32 __nrcpupair_t;
> +#define QRW_READER_BIAS (1U << 16)
> +#else
> +typedef u32 __nrcpu_t;
> +typedef u64 __nrcpupair_t;
> +#define QRW_READER_BIAS (1UL << 32)
> +#endif
> +
> +/*
> + * The queue read/write lock data structure
> + *
> + * Read lock stealing can only happen when there is at least one reader
> + * holding the read lock. When the fair flag is not set, it mimics the
> + * behavior of the regular rwlock at the expense that a perpetual stream
> + * of readers could starve a writer for a long period of time. That
> + * behavior, however, may be beneficial to a workload that is reader heavy
> + * with slow writers, and the writers can wait without undesirable consequence.
> + * This fair flag should only be set at initialization time.
> + *
> + * The layout of the structure is endian-sensitive to make sure that adding
> + * QRW_READER_BIAS to the rw field to increment the reader count won't
> + * disturb the writer and the fair fields.
> + */
> +struct qrwnode {
> + struct qrwnode *next;
> + bool wait; /* Waiting flag */
> +};
> +
> +typedef struct qrwlock {
> + union qrwcnts {
> + struct {
> +#ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> + u8 writer; /* Writer state */
> + u8 fair; /* Fair rwlock flag */
> + __nrcpu_t readers; /* # of active readers */
> +#else
> + __nrcpu_t readers; /* # of active readers */
> + u8 fair; /* Fair rwlock flag */
> + u8 writer; /* Writer state */
> +#endif
> + };
> + __nrcpupair_t rw; /* Reader/writer number pair */
> + } cnts;
> + struct qrwnode *waitq; /* Tail of waiting queue */
> +} arch_rwlock_t;
> +
> +/*
> + * Writer state values & mask
> + */
> +#define QW_WAITING 1 /* A writer is waiting */
> +#define QW_LOCKED 0xff /* A writer holds the lock */
> +#define QW_MASK_FAIR ((u8)~0) /* Mask for fair reader */
> +#define QW_MASK_UNFAIR ((u8)~QW_WAITING) /* Mask for unfair reader */
> +
> +/*
> + * External function declarations
> + */
> +extern void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock);
> +extern void queue_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock);
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_read_can_lock- would read_trylock() succeed?
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline int queue_read_can_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts rwcnts;
> +
> + rwcnts.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + return !rwcnts.writer || (!rwcnts.fair && rwcnts.readers);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_can_lock- would write_trylock() succeed?
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline int queue_write_can_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts rwcnts;
> +
> + rwcnts.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + return !rwcnts.writer && !rwcnts.readers;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_read_trylock - try to acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + * Return: 1 if lock acquired, 0 if failed
> + */
> +static inline int queue_read_trylock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts cnts;
> + u8 wmask;
> +
> + cnts.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + wmask = cnts.fair ? QW_MASK_FAIR : QW_MASK_UNFAIR;
> + if (likely(!(cnts.writer & wmask))) {
> + cnts.rw = xadd(&lock->cnts.rw, QRW_READER_BIAS);

On an unfair lock, this can momentarily make queue_read_can_lock() give
a false positive. Not sure that this is a problem -- after all, the
return value from queue_read_can_lock() is immediately obsolete anyway.

> + if (likely(!(cnts.writer & wmask)))
> + return 1;
> + /*
> + * Restore correct reader count
> + * It had been found that two nearly consecutive atomic
> + * operations (xadd & add) can cause significant cacheline
> + * contention. By inserting a pause between these two atomic
> + * operations, it can significantly reduce unintended
> + * contention.
> + */
> + cpu_relax();
> + add_smp(&lock->cnts.readers, -1);
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_trylock - try to acquire write lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + * Return: 1 if lock acquired, 0 if failed
> + */
> +static inline int queue_write_trylock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts old, new;
> +
> + old.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + if (likely(!old.writer && !old.readers)) {
> + new.rw = old.rw;
> + new.writer = QW_LOCKED;
> + if (likely(cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.rw, old.rw, new.rw) == old.rw))
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +/**
> + * queue_read_lock - acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline void queue_read_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts cnts;
> + u8 wmask;
> +
> + cnts.rw = xadd(&lock->cnts.rw, QRW_READER_BIAS);
> + wmask = cnts.fair ? QW_MASK_FAIR : QW_MASK_UNFAIR;
> + if (likely(!(cnts.writer & wmask)))
> + return;
> + /*
> + * Slowpath will decrement the reader count, if necessary
> + */
> + queue_read_lock_slowpath(lock);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_lock - acquire write lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline void queue_write_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts old;
> +
> + /*
> + * Optimize for the unfair lock case where the fair flag is 0.
> + */
> + old.rw = cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.rw, 0, QW_LOCKED);
> + if (likely(old.rw == 0))
> + return;
> + if (likely(!old.writer && !old.readers)) {
> + union qrwcnts new;
> +
> + new.rw = old.rw;
> + new.writer = QW_LOCKED;
> + if (likely(cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.rw, old.rw, new.rw) == old.rw))
> + return;
> + }
> + queue_write_lock_slowpath(lock);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_read_unlock - release read lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline void queue_read_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Atomically decrement the reader count
> + */
> + add_smp(&lock->cnts.readers, -1);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_unlock - release write lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +static inline void queue_write_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Make sure that none of the critical section will be leaked out.
> + */
> + smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
> + ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.writer) = 0;
> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();

How about the new smp_store_release() for this write? Looks to me that
smp_mb__before_clear_bit() and smp_mb__after_clear_bit() work by accident,
if they in fact do work for all architectures.

> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Initializier
> + */
> +#define __ARCH_RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED { .cnts = { .rw = 0 }, .waitq = NULL }
> +#define __ARCH_RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED_FAIR \
> + { .cnts = { { .writer = 0, .fair = 1, .readers = 0 } }, .waitq = NULL }
> +
> +/*
> + * Remapping rwlock architecture specific functions to the corresponding
> + * queue rwlock functions.
> + */
> +#define arch_read_can_lock(l) queue_read_can_lock(l)
> +#define arch_write_can_lock(l) queue_write_can_lock(l)
> +#define arch_read_lock(l) queue_read_lock(l)
> +#define arch_write_lock(l) queue_write_lock(l)
> +#define arch_read_trylock(l) queue_read_trylock(l)
> +#define arch_write_trylock(l) queue_write_trylock(l)
> +#define arch_read_unlock(l) queue_read_unlock(l)
> +#define arch_write_unlock(l) queue_write_unlock(l)
> +
> +#endif /* __ASM_GENERIC_QRWLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/kernel/Kconfig.locks b/kernel/Kconfig.locks
> index d2b32ac..b665478 100644
> --- a/kernel/Kconfig.locks
> +++ b/kernel/Kconfig.locks
> @@ -223,3 +223,10 @@ endif
> config MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER
> def_bool y
> depends on SMP && !DEBUG_MUTEXES
> +
> +config ARCH_QUEUE_RWLOCK
> + bool
> +
> +config QUEUE_RWLOCK
> + def_bool y if ARCH_QUEUE_RWLOCK
> + depends on SMP
> diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> index f3bb2cb..e3175db 100644
> --- a/lib/Makefile
> +++ b/lib/Makefile
> @@ -189,3 +189,4 @@ quiet_cmd_build_OID_registry = GEN $@
> clean-files += oid_registry_data.c
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_UCS2_STRING) += ucs2_string.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_QUEUE_RWLOCK) += qrwlock.o
> diff --git a/lib/qrwlock.c b/lib/qrwlock.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a85b9e1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/qrwlock.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
> +/*
> + * Queue read/write lock
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> + * (at your option) any later version.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * (C) Copyright 2013 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
> + *
> + * Authors: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
> + */
> +#include <linux/smp.h>
> +#include <linux/bug.h>
> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
> +#include <asm-generic/qrwlock.h>
> +
> +/*
> + * Compared with regular rwlock, the queue rwlock has has the following
> + * advantages:
> + * 1. It is more deterministic for the fair variant. Even though there is
> + * a slight chance of stealing the lock if come at the right moment, the
> + * granting of the lock is mostly in FIFO order. Even the default unfair
> + * variant is fairer at least among the writers.
> + * 2. It is faster in high contention situation.

Sometimes, anyway! (Referring to your performance results on top of
Ingo's patch.)

> + *
> + * The only downside is that the lock is 4 bytes larger in 32-bit systems
> + * and 12 bytes larger in 64-bit systems.
> + *
> + * There are two queues for writers. The writer field of the lock is a
> + * one-slot wait queue. The writers that follow will have to wait in the
> + * combined reader/writer queue (waitq).
> + *
> + * Compared with x86 ticket spinlock, the queue rwlock is faster in high
> + * contention situation. The writer lock is also faster in single thread
> + * operations. Therefore, queue rwlock can be considered as a replacement
> + * for those spinlocks that are highly contended as long as an increase
> + * in lock size is not an issue.
> + */
> +
> +/**
> + * wait_in_queue - Add to queue and wait until it is at the head
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + * @node: Node pointer to be added to the queue
> + *
> + * The use of smp_wmb() is to make sure that the other CPUs see the change
> + * ASAP.
> + */
> +static __always_inline void
> +wait_in_queue(struct qrwlock *lock, struct qrwnode *node)
> +{
> + struct qrwnode *prev;
> +
> + node->next = NULL;
> + node->wait = true;
> + prev = xchg(&lock->waitq, node);
> + if (prev) {
> + prev->next = node;
> + smp_wmb();

This smp_wmb() desperately needs a comment. Presumably it is ordering
the above "prev->next = node" with some later write, but what write?

Oh... I see the header comment above.

Actually, memory barriers don't necessarily make things visible sooner.
They are instead used for ordering. Or did you actually measure a
performance increase with this? (Seems -highly- unlikely given smp_wmb()'s
definition on x86...)

> + /*
> + * Wait until the waiting flag is off
> + */
> + while (ACCESS_ONCE(node->wait))
> + cpu_relax();
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * signal_next - Signal the next one in queue to be at the head
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + * @node: Node pointer to the current head of queue
> + */
> +static __always_inline void
> +signal_next(struct qrwlock *lock, struct qrwnode *node)
> +{
> + struct qrwnode *next;
> +
> + /*
> + * Try to notify the next node first without disturbing the cacheline
> + * of the lock. If that fails, check to see if it is the last node
> + * and so should clear the wait queue.
> + */
> + next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next);
> + if (likely(next))
> + goto notify_next;
> +
> + /*
> + * Clear the wait queue if it is the last node
> + */
> + if ((ACCESS_ONCE(lock->waitq) == node) &&
> + (cmpxchg(&lock->waitq, node, NULL) == node))
> + return;
> + /*
> + * Wait until the next one in queue set up the next field
> + */
> + while (likely(!(next = ACCESS_ONCE(node->next))))
> + cpu_relax();
> + /*
> + * The next one in queue is now at the head
> + */
> +notify_next:
> + barrier();
> + ACCESS_ONCE(next->wait) = false;
> + smp_wmb();

Because smp_wmb() does not order reads, reads from the critical section
could leak out of the critical section. A full memory barrier (smp_mb())
seems necessary to avoid this.

Yes, you do have full memory barriers implicit in various atomic operations,
but it appears to be possible to avoid them all in some situations.

> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * rspin_until_writer_unlock - inc reader count & spin until writer is gone
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + *
> + * In interrupt context or at the head of the queue, the reader will just
> + * increment the reader count & wait until the writer releases the lock.
> + */
> +static __always_inline void
> +rspin_until_writer_unlock(struct qrwlock *lock, int inc)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts cnts;
> +
> + if (inc)
> + cnts.rw = xadd(&lock->cnts.rw, QRW_READER_BIAS);
> + else
> + cnts.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + while (cnts.writer == QW_LOCKED) {
> + cpu_relax();
> + cnts.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_read_lock_slowpath - acquire read lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock: Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + struct qrwnode node;
> + union qrwcnts cnts;
> +
> + /*
> + * Readers come here when it cannot get the lock without waiting
> + */
> + if (unlikely(irq_count())) {
> + /*
> + * Readers in interrupt context will spin until the lock is
> + * available without waiting in the queue.
> + */
> + rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> + cnts.rw = xadd(&lock->cnts.rw, -QRW_READER_BIAS);
> +
> + /*
> + * Put the reader into the wait queue
> + */
> + wait_in_queue(lock, &node);
> +
> + /*
> + * At the head of the wait queue now, try to increment the reader
> + * count and get the lock.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(cnts.fair)) {
> + /*
> + * For fair reader, wait until the writer state goes to 0
> + * before incrementing the reader count.
> + */
> + while (ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.writer))
> + cpu_relax();
> + }
> + rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, 1);
> + signal_next(lock, &node);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(queue_read_lock_slowpath);
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_3step_lock - acquire write lock in 3 steps
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + * Return: 1 if lock acquired, 0 otherwise
> + *
> + * Step 1 - Try to acquire the lock directly if no reader is present
> + * Step 2 - Set the waiting flag to notify readers that a writer is waiting
> + * Step 3 - When the readers field goes to 0, set the locked flag
> + *
> + * When not in fair mode, the readers actually ignore the second step.
> + * However, this is still necessary to force other writers to fall in line.
> + */
> +static __always_inline int queue_write_3step_lock(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + union qrwcnts old, new;
> +
> + old.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);
> +
> + /* Step 1 */
> + if (!old.writer & !old.readers) {
> + new.rw = old.rw;
> + new.writer = QW_LOCKED;
> + if (likely(cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.rw, old.rw, new.rw) == old.rw))
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + /* Step 2 */
> + if (old.writer || (cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.writer, 0, QW_WAITING) != 0))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Step 3 */
> + while (true) {
> + cpu_relax();
> + old.rw = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->cnts.rw);

Suppose that there now is a writer, but no readers...

> + if (!old.readers) {
> + new.rw = old.rw;
> + new.writer = QW_LOCKED;
> + if (likely(cmpxchg(&lock->cnts.rw, old.rw, new.rw)
> + == old.rw))

... can't this mistakenly hand out the lock to a second writer?

Ah, the trick is that we are at the head of the queue, so the only writer
we can possibly contend with is a prior holder of the lock. Once that
writer leaves, no other writer but can appear. And the QW_WAITING bit
prevents new writers from immediately grabbing the lock.

> + return 1;
> + }
> + }
> + /* Should never reach here */
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * queue_write_lock_slowpath - acquire write lock of a queue rwlock
> + * @lock : Pointer to queue rwlock structure
> + */
> +void queue_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> +{
> + struct qrwnode node;
> +
> + /*
> + * Put the writer into the wait queue
> + */
> + wait_in_queue(lock, &node);
> +
> + /*
> + * At the head of the wait queue now, call queue_write_3step_lock()
> + * to acquire the lock until it is done.
> + */
> + while (!queue_write_3step_lock(lock))
> + cpu_relax();

If we get here, queue_write_3step_lock() just executed a successful
cmpxchg(), which implies a full memory barrier. This prevents the
critical section from leaking out, good!

> + signal_next(lock, &node);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(queue_write_lock_slowpath);
> --
> 1.7.1
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-08 22:41    [W:0.109 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site