Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Optimize write lock slowpath | From | Jason Low <> | Date | Wed, 11 May 2016 11:26:02 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 13:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:16:37PM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > When acquiring the rwsem write lock in the slowpath, we first try > > to set count to RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS. When that is successful, > > we then atomically add the RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS in cases where > > there are other tasks on the wait list. This causes write lock > > operations to often issue multiple atomic operations. > > > > We can instead make the list_is_singular() check first, and then > > set the count accordingly, so that we issue at most 1 atomic > > operation when acquiring the write lock and reduce unnecessary > > cacheline contention. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> > > --- > > kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c > > index df4dcb8..23c33e6 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c > > @@ -258,14 +258,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rwsem_down_read_failed); > > static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock(long count, struct rw_semaphore *sem) > > { > > /* > > + * Avoid trying to acquire write lock if count isn't RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS. > > */ > > + if (count != RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) > > + return false; > > + > > + /* > > + * Acquire the lock by trying to set it to ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS. If there > > + * are other tasks on the wait list, we need to add on WAITING_BIAS. > > + */ > > + count = list_is_singular(&sem->wait_list) ? > > + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS : > > + RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS; > > + > > + if (cmpxchg_acquire(&sem->count, RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS, count) == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) { > > rwsem_set_owner(sem); > > return true; > > } > > Right; so that whole thing works because we're holding sem->wait_lock. > Should we clarify that someplace?
Yup, we can mention that the rwsem_try_write_lock() function must be called with the wait_lock held.
> Also; should we not make rw_semaphore::count an atomic_long_t and kill > rwsem_atomic_{update,add}() ?
Right, it's better to just make the variable an atomic and remove the unnecessary rwsem_atomic_update() "abstraction". I'll send out a separate patch for this.
| |