Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp2990032imu; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:36:28 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X14/krj4IzeYHtmlcJ9Zmb0JmzPhVx6eNrvpa9omflOOSjUUsM7Ux3E6oaFudtEIXiI6X8 X-Received: by 2002:a62:d885:: with SMTP id e127mr2985115pfg.197.1543527388056; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:36:28 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1543527388; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pmVZHPKsFjhLEGu+XFNeHUvvfH0qwPfRXUpnTV3hMWxz2ej+LDBTWfcjov4qe0xDHm elQYacMQ6Zf6ZOAmyubolm8uiIDZ0f7Uw17f/09d8OchyjfSc9f0Hdog3f8SxRvpd2aZ o983doLPIuSqdfJsQiNOyw1jB2NYYBOeiV9WT4iwsRAVW4f0Oe1R1Grm5U6QmQr0IuMz wJOwn7nhHtUvk2U16C+ITY0HzZTNrdTtsEOpyUgPfinG7dT+ewpBCaJGtXZD4b0o7yeY m34LN/f188VVQQuCSrBwqPMuBgZqiNmpGAn2xU6WAtOUw6vPacUn8ql7OF3BfYu+5s0V W7GA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to :from:date; bh=aRSXUQJnXyYrPY/O1snSOETJamQJhwhd3kbsBvqhgwE=; b=Y0ToHIzF6g3pST6WioMkfeZtGswMJFCzAiVOO7mlYW7S6a78SSQQLKDJPTWci3Yy5e AYM64/jxmchADf3IyD7hYDzFrONx5U8AvzqsRTtFmgt0Um7YFI5mzWznzyG78pQxGCVp UfMmFfkQ9h2u8f3CX7tDpwxm7ICMycD/YwYn6wMYrTso0McGrfNE5xd/LFQxnKpb+0bH tBmrKhpdSAWrmEUy3tX2/If7+i0rRoKRy7OmI9fKEU9q0dFiyPgGbU/wmOO2CWl7he3w 5rOFiDsH1O3yeC7MePWTFM/Da6WwyXnXBHgdzISeRIMZopOALIvK9oUrMO+VEzretvSh eDzw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y2si3184773pli.266.2018.11.29.13.36.12; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:36:28 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726772AbeK3IlT (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 03:41:19 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52692 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726374AbeK3IlT (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2018 03:41:19 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA83ABB1; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:34:21 -0800 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Peter Zijlstra , Yongji Xie , mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xieyongji@baidu.com, zhangyu31@baidu.com, liuqi16@baidu.com, yuanlinsi01@baidu.com, nixun@baidu.com, lilin24@baidu.com, longman@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil Message-ID: <20181129213421.wwvhsjql3m3lvtv4@linux-r8p5> References: <1543495830-2644-1-git-send-email-xieyongji@baidu.com> <20181129131232.GN2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5598cd71-c3c8-d6ef-eb30-777cf901a2ef@redhat.com> <20181129160627.GU2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <8cc45695-b325-a219-8b46-d5da6ddfdd63@redhat.com> <20181129172700.GA11632@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20181129180828.GA11650@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <729ceddb-dd9a-ec2a-f74e-03fa4d7e65e8@redhat.com> <20181129213017.v3eljor54lfpoug2@linux-r8p5> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181129213017.v3eljor54lfpoug2@linux-r8p5> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I messed up something such that waiman was not in the thread. Ccing. >On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Waiman Long wrote: > >>That can be costly for x86 which will now have 2 locked instructions. > >Yeah, and when used as an actual queue we should really start to notice. >Some users just have a single task in the wake_q because avoiding the cost >of wake_up_process() with locks held is significant. > >How about instead of adding the barrier before the cmpxchg, we do it >in the failed branch, right before we return. This is the uncommon >path. > >Thanks, >Davidlohr > >diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c >index 091e089063be..0d844a18a9dc 100644 >--- a/kernel/sched/core.c >+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c >@@ -408,8 +408,14 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task) > * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full > * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q(). > */ >- if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL)) >+ if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL)) { >+ /* >+ * Ensure, that when the cmpxchg() fails, the corresponding >+ * wake_up_q() will observe our prior state. >+ */ >+ smp_mb__after_atomic(); > return; >+ } > > get_task_struct(task); >