On 02/13/2019 02:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long <long...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I looked at the assembly code in arch/x86/include/asm/rwsem.h. For both
>> trylocks (read & write), the count is read first before attempting to
>> lock it. We did the same for all trylock functions in other locks.
>> Depending on how the trylock is used and how contended the lock is, it
>> may help or hurt performance. Changing down_read_trylock to do an
>> unconditional cmpxchg will change the performance profile of existing
>> code. So I would prefer keeping the current code.
>> I do notice now that the generic down_write_trylock() code is doing an
>> unconditional compxchg. So I wonder if we should change it to read the
>> lock first like other trylocks or just leave it as it is.
> No, I think we should instead move the other trylocks to the 
> try-for-ownership model as well, like Linus suggested.
> That's the general assumption we make in locking primitives, that we 
> optimize for the common, expected case - which would be that the trylock 
> succeeds, and I don't see why trylock primitives should be different.
> In fact I can see more ways for read-for-sharing to perform suboptimally 
> on larger systems.

I don't mind changing to the try-for-ownership model for rwsem and
mutex. I do have some concern to do that for spinlock. Some of the lock
slowpath code do optimistic trylock. Making them unconditional cmpxchg
will impact lock contention performance.

I will update this rwsem patch to make the change while I am working on
it. For other locks, I will suggest we go slow and carefully evaluate
the performance implication before we make the changes.


Reply via email to