On 04/18/2019 05:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 01:51:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 04/17/2019 10:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:54PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> @@ -650,6 +686,33 @@ __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore
>>>> *sem, int state)
>>>> struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
>>>> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>>>>
>>>> + if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
>>>> + goto queue;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Undo read bias from down_read() and do optimistic spinning.
>>>> + */
>>>> + atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
>>>> + adjustment = 0;
>>>> + if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, false)) {
>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Opportunistically wake up other readers in the wait queue.
>>>> + * It has another chance of wakeup at unlock time.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) &&
>>>> + raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags)) {
>>> why trylock?
>> I used trylock to avoid getting stuck in the spinlock while holding a
>> read lock on the rwsem.
> Is that a real concern? I would think that not waking further readers
> would, esp. under high contention, be a bigger deal.
Yes, I can certainly change it to a regular spin_lock().
Cheers,
Longman
