Message-ID: <436bcf39-297a-f5a6-ac58-a82e77cb3b83@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 16:25:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already
 set
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?6ams5oyv5Y2O?= <mazhenhua@xiaomi.com>,
        mingo <mingo@redhat.com>, will <will@kernel.org>,
        "boqun.feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <4fafad133b074f279dbab1aa3642e23f@xiaomi.com>
 <20211107090131.1535-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <13d683ed-793c-b502-44ff-f28114d9386b@redhat.com>
 <02e118c0-2116-b806-2b48-b9c91dc847dd@redhat.com>
 <20211110213854.GE174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YY0x55wxO2v5HCOW@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <61735528-141c-8d77-592d-b6b8fb75ebaa@redhat.com>
 <YY1s6v9b/tYtNnGv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <e16f9fc2-ce01-192b-065d-460c2ad9b317@redhat.com>
 <20211111202647.GH174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <be3dc705-494a-913e-230f-9533c7404ac2@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <be3dc705-494a-913e-230f-9533c7404ac2@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/11/21 16:01, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 11/11/21 15:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:36:52PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -434,6 +430,7 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore 
>>> *sem,
>>>               if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) &&
>>>                   time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
>>>                   adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
>>> +                waiter->handoff_set = true;
>>>                   lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
>>>               }
>> Do we really need this flag? Wouldn't it be the same as waiter-is-first
>> AND sem-has-handoff ?
> That is true. The only downside is that we have to read the count 
> first in rwsem_out_nolock_clear_flags(). Since this is not a fast 
> path, it should be OK to do that.

I just realize that I may still need this flag for writer to determine 
if it should spin after failing to acquire the lock. Or I will have to 
do extra read of count value in the loop. I don't need to use it for 
writer now.

Cheers,
Longman