lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/10] locking: bring back lglocks
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 01:03:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 06:13:53AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:51:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:49:04AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > bcachefs makes use of them - also, add a proper lg_lock_init()
> > >
> > > Why?! lglocks are horrid things, we got rid of them for a reason. They
> > > have terrifying worst case preemption off latencies.
> >
> > Ah. That was missing from your commit message.
>
> Yeah, sorry, sometimes it's hard to state what is obvious to oneself :/
>
> > > Why can't you use something like per-cpu rwsems?
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > a) in my use case, lg_global_lock() pretty much isn't used in normal operation,
> > it's only called when starting mark and sweep gc (which is not needed
> > anymore and disabled by default, it'll eventually get rolled into online
> > fsck) and for device resize
> >
> > b) I'm using it in conjection with percpu counters, and technically yes I
> > certainly _could_ use per-cpu sleepable locks (mutexes would make more sense
> > for me than rwsems), there's a bit of a clash there and it's going to be a
> > bit ugly and messy and it's more work for me. (this_cpu_ptr() no longer
> > makes any sense in that case, so it'd mean auditing and converting all the
> > code that touches the relevant data structures).
>
> Well, lg is a reader-writer style lock per definition, as you want
> concurrency on the local and full exclusion against the global, so I'm
> not sure how mutexes fit into this.
>
> In any case, have a look at percpu_down_read_preempt_disable() and
> percpu_up_read_preempt_enable(); they're a bit of a hack but they should
> work for you I think.
>
> They will sleep at down_read, but the entire actual critical section
> will be with preemption disabled -- therefore it had better be short and
> bounded, and the RT guys will thank you for not using spinlock_t under
> it (use raw_spinlock_t if you have to).
>
> The (global) writer side will block and be preemptible like normal.
>
> > If you're really that dead set against lglocks I might just come up with a new
> > lock with similar semantics, that doesn't break this_cpu_ptr() but sleeps if the
> > global lock is held...
>
> See above, we already have this ;-)

Ok, I think this might work. I'll have to stare awhile and make sure I remember
everything I'm currently depending on the lglock for...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 13:39    [W:0.054 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site