Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:38:28 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc:     'Waiman Long' <longman@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning
Message-ID: <20201120213828.n7f23qy75hduommo@linux-p48b.lan>
References: <20201118030429.23017-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20201118030429.23017-6-longman@redhat.com>
 <20201118053556.3fmmtat7upv6dtvd@linux-p48b.lan>
 <ee34bc01-9fef-23ff-ada1-1ec2d39533c9@redhat.com>
 <5fe76531782f4a8492b341d5f381147b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5fe76531782f4a8492b341d5f381147b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, David Laight wrote:
>I got massive performance improvements from changing a driver
>we have to use mutex instead of the old semaphores (the driver
>was written a long time ago).
>
>While these weren't 'rw' the same issue will apply.
>
>The problem was that the semaphore/mutex was typically only held over
>a few instructions (eg to add an item to a list).
>But with semaphore if you got contention the process always slept.
>OTOH mutex spin 'for a while' before sleeping so the code rarely slept.

The caveat here is if you are using trylock/unlock from irq, which
is the only reason why regular semaphores are still around today. If
not, indeed a mutex is better.

Thanks,
Davidlohr