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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190418135151.GB12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <d931916b-41f5-f12d-8c38-0cccbc00a301@redhat.com> <20190418144036.GE12232@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4cbd3c18-c9c0-56eb-4e01-ee355a69057a@redhat.com> <20190419102647.GP7905@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419120207.GO4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190419130304.GV14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190419131522.GW14281@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <57620139-92a3-4a21-56bd-5d6fff23214f@redhat.com>
 <7b1bfc26-6e90-bd65-ab46-08413acd80e9@redhat.com> <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190423141714.GO11158@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:27:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whnQJ9YDrkcKteNSACMJxzw1bL0RPfGQsey_9Nm7b8mnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] locking/rwsem: Guard against making count negative
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 7:17 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of an architecture where disabling interrupts is faster
> than disabling preemption.

I don't thin kit ever is, but I'd worry a bit about the
preempt_enable() just because it also checks if need_resched() is true
when re-enabling preemption.

So doing preempt_enable() as part of rwsem_read_trylock() might cause
us to schedule in *exactly* the wrong place,

So if we play preemption games, I wonder if we should make them more
explicit than hiding them in that helper function, because
particularly for the slow path case, I think we'd be much better off
just avoiding the busy-loop in the slow path, rather than first
scheduling due to preempt_enable(), and then starting to look at the
slow path onlly afterwards.

IOW, I get the feeling that the preemption-off area might be better
off being potentially much bigger, and covering the whole (or a large
portion) of the semaphore operation, rather than just the
rwsem_read_trylock() fastpath.

Hmm?

                   Linus