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:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 11:10:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 15/19] locking/rwsem: Adaptive disabling of reader
 optimistic spinning
Message-ID: <20190604091000.GH3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190520205918.22251-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20190520205918.22251-16-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190520205918.22251-16-longman@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:59:14PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Reader optimistic spinning is helpful when the reader critical section
> is short and there aren't that many readers around. It makes readers
> relatively more preferred than writers. When a writer times out spinning
> on a reader-owned lock and set the nospinnable bits, there are two main
> reasons for that.
> 
>  1) The reader critical section is long, perhaps the task sleeps after
>     acquiring the read lock.
>  2) There are just too many readers contending the lock causing it to
>     take a while to service all of them.
> 
> In the former case, long reader critical section will impede the progress
> of writers which is usually more important for system performance.
> In the later case, reader optimistic spinning tends to make the reader
> groups that contain readers that acquire the lock together smaller
> leading to more of them. That may hurt performance in some cases. In
> other words, the setting of nonspinnable bits indicates that reader
> optimistic spinning may not be helpful for those workloads that cause it.
> 
> Therefore, any writers that have observed the setting of the writer
> nonspinnable bit for a given rwsem after they fail to acquire the lock
> via optimistic spinning will set the reader nonspinnable bit once they
> acquire the write lock. Similarly, readers that observe the setting
> of reader nonspinnable bit at slowpath entry will also set the reader
> nonspinnable bit when they acquire the read lock via the wakeup path.

So both cases set the _reader_ nonspinnable bit?