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;
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 09:50:13 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip v2 06/12] locking/rwsem: Wake up almost all readers
 in wait queue
Message-ID: <20190410165013.njy5bg32pxq6syyr@linux-r8p5>
References: <20190405192115.17416-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190405192115.17416-7-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190405192115.17416-7-longman@redhat.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019, Waiman Long wrote:

>When the front of the wait queue is a reader, other readers
>immediately following the first reader will also be woken up at the
>same time. However, if there is a writer in between. Those readers
>behind the writer will not be woken up.
>
>Because of optimistic spinning, the lock acquisition order is not FIFO
>anyway. The lock handoff mechanism will ensure that lock starvation
>will not happen.
>
>Assuming that the lock hold times of the other readers still in the
>queue will be about the same as the readers that are being woken up,
>there is really not much additional cost other than the additional
>latency due to the wakeup of additional tasks by the waker. Therefore
>all the readers up to a maximum of 256 in the queue are woken up when
>the first waiter is a reader to improve reader throughput.

Before we stopped waking readers when a writer was encountered but
would otherwise wakeup _all_ readers. I don't understand why you want
to limit this to MAX_READERS_WAKEUP, otherwise I agree it's nice to
skip the writer and continue waking readers in the queue (with the handoff
guarantees obviously).

Would it not be better to do the MAX_READERS_WAKEUP limit only when
a writer is found?

Thanks,
Davidlohr