Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220617091039.2257083-1-eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
 <YqxufxqsnHjVfQOs@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <2dd754f9-3a79-ed17-e423-6b411c3afb69@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <2dd754f9-3a79-ed17-e423-6b411c3afb69@redhat.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:57:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod5ijDz=coEE8G8v_haPaKuUa5jHYzEwKvLVxHGphixsFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwlocks: do not starve writers
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 7:43 AM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/22 08:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 02:10:39AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
> >> @@ -23,16 +23,6 @@ void queued_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
> >>      /*
> >>       * Readers come here when they cannot get the lock without waiting
> >>       */
> >> -    if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
> >> -            /*
> >> -             * Readers in interrupt context will get the lock immediately
> >> -             * if the writer is just waiting (not holding the lock yet),
> >> -             * so spin with ACQUIRE semantics until the lock is available
> >> -             * without waiting in the queue.
> >> -             */
> >> -            atomic_cond_read_acquire(&lock->cnts, !(VAL & _QW_LOCKED));
> >> -            return;
> >> -    }
> >>      atomic_sub(_QR_BIAS, &lock->cnts);
> >>
> >>      trace_contention_begin(lock, LCB_F_SPIN | LCB_F_READ);
> > This is known to break tasklist_lock.
> >
> We certainly can't break the current usage of tasklist_lock.
>
> I am aware of this problem with networking code and is thinking about
> either relaxing the check to exclude softirq or provide a
> read_lock_unfair() variant for networking use.

read_lock_unfair() for networking use or tasklist_lock use?

> I think tasklist_lock
> isn't taken from softirq context, but I may be wrong. Providing a
> read_lock_unfair() will require quite a bit of work in the supporting
> infrastructure as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>