Date:   Thu, 11 Nov 2021 22:53:31 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already
 set
Message-ID: <YY2Q220iEiFdaKlT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <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>
 <436bcf39-297a-f5a6-ac58-a82e77cb3b83@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <436bcf39-297a-f5a6-ac58-a82e77cb3b83@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> 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.

Maybe it's too late here, but afaict this is right after failing
try_write_lock(), which will have done at least that load you're
interested in, no?

Simply have try_write_lock() update &count or something.