Received: by 2002:a25:86ce:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y14csp172856ybm; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzRhzMpzsXAb5Vt9/obf78TS1qj/T6Yfubz4ZrEuPTr+l3NsWISFN0MkgtO0wx0qmci75Iy X-Received: by 2002:a62:68c4:: with SMTP id d187mr65361447pfc.245.1558386250000; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:04:10 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558386249; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=QBuQCgSXjvP9t07usIAyzB15Si9I132/xWcPiKFxI/+UzYyZq7IaMwbeBroWSOK1sy jwtL0VRiKZ6MOt+BndHYIQ/CcXjNs8mCL5oaHIkhskMWCGsxDubwRvzIfThX/5PeMNFT ttJjz+6RWluCyN9/0q4aHIRqd6iuokcTVV+CAo5rge6N0hQmypKFP7+pgZYJLSuqSPYC oc01rVbawHfEd67DBbVKsyp0xQZIKvA3D7/2J6ZvbMMHfoGk/x1f1br9ze5f+QDlO5tT lIF8Ddnr2gduklTFotSAnTbxZzAL2gwoK0RHrEnO4SKxBdzNo1apS5e/3Wq/nwKSo6H4 5ryA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:references:in-reply-to:message-id:date :subject:cc:to:from; bh=7djY2BXxut8hpGzNEB/kAX0vTWv6OJ/qYngHmp8vLmU=; b=OeysabbUKZNxljsWrwURGRwxfdL6nY2ps21ypDgSky4JULvTRN724QpouNtztn5YPG NGo3599MadJ5c0gAUnH+PUPxhK2S/e7Amya6zo+cBqDomLoAeTAn57ZZFqRRE6p/wkeO 6aMq5GfPHDLJZ2teUr1GToIlWVHC6Y++sh9lt+i2qLWBb72jm4Kt9+dxLRgF42F9d+H3 a5h3tEwmayURF9YicF6I8WfX419V35qDak0xU7850DCfDTAp9Eb7GRTs3En2iFglnoTb Lth8U/OmWgqOuNHljcoYB5k51ztivksZ4UP781n5M7kUq1epIGiB2p7EDmPbIi1swrei mNQQ== 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o61si16473034pld.82.2019.05.20.14.03.54; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:04:09 -0700 (PDT) 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726859AbfETU76 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34394 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725971AbfETU74 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893698666D; Mon, 20 May 2019 20:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from llong.com (dhcp-17-85.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.85]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F422643E8; Mon, 20 May 2019 20:59:47 +0000 (UTC) From: Waiman Long To: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso , Linus Torvalds , Tim Chen , huang ying , Waiman Long Subject: [PATCH v8 02/19] locking/rwsem: Remove rwsem_wake() wakeup optimization Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:59:01 -0400 Message-Id: <20190520205918.22251-3-longman@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20190520205918.22251-1-longman@redhat.com> References: <20190520205918.22251-1-longman@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Mon, 20 May 2019 20:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org With the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem: Reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()"), the rwsem_wake() forgoes doing a wakeup if the wait_lock cannot be directly acquired and an optimistic spinning locker is present. This can help performance by avoiding spinning on the wait_lock when it is contended. With the later commit 133e89ef5ef3 ("locking/rwsem: Enable lockless waiter wakeup(s)"), the performance advantage of the above optimization diminishes as the average wait_lock hold time become much shorter. With a later patch that supports rwsem lock handoff, we can no longer relies on the fact that the presence of an optimistic spinning locker will ensure that the lock will be acquired by a task soon and rwsem_wake() will be called later on to wake up waiters. This can lead to missed wakeup and application hang. So the commit 59aabfc7e959 ("locking/rwsem: Reduce spinlock contention in wakeup after up_read()/up_write()") will have to be reverted. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long --- kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 72 ------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 72 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c index c0500679fd2f..3083fdf50447 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c @@ -411,25 +411,11 @@ static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem) lockevent_cond_inc(rwsem_opt_fail, !taken); return taken; } - -/* - * Return true if the rwsem has active spinner - */ -static inline bool rwsem_has_spinner(struct rw_semaphore *sem) -{ - return osq_is_locked(&sem->osq); -} - #else static bool rwsem_optimistic_spin(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { return false; } - -static inline bool rwsem_has_spinner(struct rw_semaphore *sem) -{ - return false; -} #endif /* @@ -651,65 +637,7 @@ struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem) unsigned long flags; DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q); - /* - * __rwsem_down_write_failed_common(sem) - * rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem) - * osq_unlock(sem->osq) - * ... - * atomic_long_add_return(&sem->count) - * - * - VS - - * - * __up_write() - * if (atomic_long_sub_return_release(&sem->count) < 0) - * rwsem_wake(sem) - * osq_is_locked(&sem->osq) - * - * And __up_write() must observe !osq_is_locked() when it observes the - * atomic_long_add_return() in order to not miss a wakeup. - * - * This boils down to: - * - * [S.rel] X = 1 [RmW] r0 = (Y += 0) - * MB RMB - * [RmW] Y += 1 [L] r1 = X - * - * exists (r0=1 /\ r1=0) - */ - smp_rmb(); - - /* - * If a spinner is present, it is not necessary to do the wakeup. - * Try to do wakeup only if the trylock succeeds to minimize - * spinlock contention which may introduce too much delay in the - * unlock operation. - * - * spinning writer up_write/up_read caller - * --------------- ----------------------- - * [S] osq_unlock() [L] osq - * MB RMB - * [RmW] rwsem_try_write_lock() [RmW] spin_trylock(wait_lock) - * - * Here, it is important to make sure that there won't be a missed - * wakeup while the rwsem is free and the only spinning writer goes - * to sleep without taking the rwsem. Even when the spinning writer - * is just going to break out of the waiting loop, it will still do - * a trylock in rwsem_down_write_failed() before sleeping. IOW, if - * rwsem_has_spinner() is true, it will guarantee at least one - * trylock attempt on the rwsem later on. - */ - if (rwsem_has_spinner(sem)) { - /* - * The smp_rmb() here is to make sure that the spinner - * state is consulted before reading the wait_lock. - */ - smp_rmb(); - if (!raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags)) - return sem; - goto locked; - } raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags); -locked: if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) __rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q); -- 2.18.1