Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757300Ab3C1RFp (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:05:45 -0400 Received: from mailout02.c08.mtsvc.net ([205.186.168.190]:53605 "EHLO mailout02.c08.mtsvc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757222Ab3C1RFo (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1364490332.3559.25.camel@thor.lan> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rwsem: move rwsem_down_failed_common code into rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed From: Peter Hurley To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: Alex Shi , Ingo Molnar , David Howells , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Yuanhan Liu , Rik van Riel , Dave Chinner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:05:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1363344869-15732-4-git-send-email-walken@google.com> References: <1363344869-15732-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com> <1363344869-15732-4-git-send-email-walken@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.3-0pjh1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-User: 125194 peter@hurleysoftware.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4166 Lines: 133 On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 03:54 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > Remove the rwsem_down_failed_common function and replace it with two > identical copies of its code in rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed. > > This is because we want to make different optimizations in > rwsem_down_{read,write}_failed; we are adding this pure-duplication > step as a separate commit in order to make it easier to check the > following steps. > > Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse > > --- > lib/rwsem.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c > index 40636454cf3c..fb658af1c12c 100644 > --- a/lib/rwsem.c > +++ b/lib/rwsem.c > @@ -178,12 +178,12 @@ try_again_write: > } > > /* > - * wait for a lock to be granted > + * wait for the read lock to be granted > */ > -static struct rw_semaphore __sched * > -rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, > - enum rwsem_waiter_type type, signed long adjustment) > +struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > { > + enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ; > + signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS; Again, just my opinion (and I suspect you only did this because that's what was here) but I think this should be: + long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS; > struct rwsem_waiter waiter; > struct task_struct *tsk = current; > signed long count; Same here. > @@ -238,21 +238,63 @@ rwsem_down_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore *sem, > } > > /* > - * wait for the read lock to be granted > - */ > -struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_read_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > -{ > - return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ, > - -RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS); > -} > - > -/* > * wait for the write lock to be granted > */ > struct rw_semaphore __sched *rwsem_down_write_failed(struct rw_semaphore *sem) > { > - return rwsem_down_failed_common(sem, RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE, > - -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS); > + enum rwsem_waiter_type type = RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE; > + signed long adjustment = -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS; Same here. > + struct rwsem_waiter waiter; > + struct task_struct *tsk = current; > + signed long count; And here. > + > + /* set up my own style of waitqueue */ > + waiter.task = tsk; > + waiter.type = type; > + get_task_struct(tsk); > + > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock); > + if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) > + adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS; > + list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list); > + > + /* we're now waiting on the lock, but no longer actively locking */ > + count = rwsem_atomic_update(adjustment, sem); > + > + /* If there are no active locks, wake the front queued process(es) up. > + * > + * Alternatively, if we're called from a failed down_write(), there > + * were already threads queued before us and there are no active > + * writers, the lock must be read owned; so we try to wake any read > + * locks that were queued ahead of us. */ > + if (count == RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS) > + sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_NO_ACTIVE); > + else if (count > RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS && > + adjustment == -RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) > + sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED); > + > + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock); > + > + /* wait to be given the lock */ > + while (true) { > + set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > + if (!waiter.task) > + break; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock); > + /* Try to get the writer sem, may steal from the head writer: */ > + if (type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE) > + if (try_get_writer_sem(sem, &waiter)) { > + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock); > + return sem; > + } > + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock); > + schedule(); > + } > + > + tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING; > + > + return sem; > } > > /* -- 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/