Message-ID: <5224C850.2060103@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:18:08 -0400
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
CC: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: add rwsem_is_contended
References: <1377872041-390-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com> <CANN689Gz-g=_0ErGkB1WZhJUxg+op2=DAPr3GMYwiXFeT9NmGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANN689Gz-g=_0ErGkB1WZhJUxg+op2=DAPr3GMYwiXFeT9NmGw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2814
Lines: 62

On 09/01/2013 04:32 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> wrote:
>> Btrfs uses an rwsem to control access to its extent tree.  Threads will hold a
>> read lock on this rwsem while they scan the extent tree, and if need_resched()
>> they will drop the lock and schedule.  The transaction commit needs to take a
>> write lock for this rwsem for a very short period to switch out the commit
>> roots.  If there are a lot of threads doing this caching operation we can starve
>> out the committers which slows everybody out.  To address this we want to add
>> this functionality to see if our rwsem has anybody waiting to take a write lock
>> so we can drop it and schedule for a bit to allow the commit to continue.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
>
> FYI, I once tried to introduce something like this before, but my use
> case was pretty weak so it was not accepted at the time. I don't think
> there were any objections to the API itself though, and I think it's
> potentially a good idea if you use case justifies it.

Exactly, I'm concerned about the use case: readers can't starve writers.
Of course, lots of existing readers can temporarily prevent a writer from
acquiring, but those readers would already have the lock. Any new readers
wouldn't be able to prevent a waiting writer from obtaining the lock.

Josef,
Could you be more explicit, maybe with some detailed numbers about the
condition you report?

I say that because a subtle bug that could mistakenly wait a reader
existed in the rwsem implementation until relatively recently. Is there
some other lurking problem?

> Two comments:
>
> - Note that there are two rwsem implementations - if you are going to
> add functionality to rwsem.h you want to add the same functionality in
> rwsem-spinlock.h as well.
>
> - I would prefer if you could avoid taking the wait_lock in your
> rwsem.h implementation. In your use case (read lock is known to be
> held), checking for sem->count < 0 would be sufficient to indicate a
> writer is queued (or getting onto the queue). In the general case,
> some architectures have the various values set up so that
> RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS != RWSEM_ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS - for these
> architectures at least, you can check for waiters by looking if the
> lowest bit of RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS is set in sem->count.

Michel,

I'm glad you point out a much better approach --- but why are we
considering open-coding down_read_trylock()/down_write_trylock?

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--
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/