Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > > The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> > > task needs to be rescheduled.
> > >
> >
> > While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
> >
> > kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> > @@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
> > *lock)
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> > - if (owner)
> > + if (owner) {
>
> That is, its an unmatched barrier, as mutex_set_owner() doesn't include
> a barrier, and I don't think i needs to; but on alpha we still need this
> read barrier to ensure we do not mess up this related load afaik.
>
> Paul? can you explain an unpaired read_barrier_depends?
That is an impressive one! ;-)
My rationale for the code without smp_read_barrier_depends() is that
(1) the task struct was already exposed to readers and (2) the check
is heuristic in nature -- if we miss the assignment to ->on_cpu due
to memory order (or for any other reason), we just sleep unnecessarily.
If we did need full ordering (which I do -not- believe that we do at
the moment) then the above ACCESS_ONCE() can become rcu_dereference()
and mutex_set_owner() needs an smp_store_release().
So if we need a barrier here (which again I believe we do not), then
there needs to be a paired barrier in mutex_set_owner().
Thanx, Paul
> > + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> > retval = owner->on_cpu;
> > + }
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > /*
> > * if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:48:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
task needs to be rescheduled.
While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
*lock)
rcu_read_lock();
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock-owner);
- if (owner)
+ if (owner) {
That is, its an unmatched barrier, as mutex_set_owner() doesn't include
a barrier, and I don't think i needs to; but on alpha we still need this
read barrier to ensure we do not mess up this related load afaik.
Paul? can you explain an unpaired read_barrier_depends?
That is an impressive one! ;-)
My rationale for the code without smp_read_barrier_depends() is that
(1) the task struct was already exposed to readers and (2) the check
is heuristic in nature -- if we miss the assignment to -on_cpu due
to memory order (or for any other reason), we just sleep unnecessarily.
If we did need full ordering (which I do -not- believe that we do at
the moment) then the above ACCESS_ONCE() can become rcu_dereference()
and mutex_set_owner() needs an smp_store_release().
So if we need a barrier here (which again I believe we do not), then
there needs to be a paired barrier in mutex_set_owner().
Thanx, Paul
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
retval = owner-on_cpu;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* if lock-owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> > The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> > task needs to be rescheduled.
> >
>
> While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
>
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
> *lock)
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
> - if (owner)
> + if (owner) {
That is, its an unmatched barrier, as mutex_set_owner() doesn't include
a barrier, and I don't think i needs to; but on alpha we still need this
read barrier to ensure we do not mess up this related load afaik.
Paul? can you explain an unpaired read_barrier_depends?
> + smp_read_barrier_depends();
> retval = owner->on_cpu;
> + }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> /*
>* if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
> The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
> task needs to be rescheduled.
>
While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
*lock)
rcu_read_lock();
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner);
- if (owner)
+ if (owner) {
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
retval = owner->on_cpu;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* if lock->owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the task needs to be rescheduled. Signed-off-by: Jason Low --- kernel/locking/mutex.c |3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 4dd6e4c..85c6be1 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -212,6 +212,9 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock) struct task_struct *owner; int retval = 1; + if (need_resched()) + return 0; + rcu_read_lock(); owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner); if (owner) -- 1.7.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the task needs to be rescheduled. Signed-off-by: Jason Low jason.l...@hp.com --- kernel/locking/mutex.c |3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c index 4dd6e4c..85c6be1 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c @@ -212,6 +212,9 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lock) struct task_struct *owner; int retval = 1; + if (need_resched()) + return 0; + rcu_read_lock(); owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock-owner); if (owner) -- 1.7.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
task needs to be rescheduled.
While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
*lock)
rcu_read_lock();
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock-owner);
- if (owner)
+ if (owner) {
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
retval = owner-on_cpu;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* if lock-owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [RFC 1/3] mutex: In mutex_can_spin_on_owner(), return false if task need_resched()
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:44:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 04:33:08PM -0800, Jason Low wrote:
The mutex_can_spin_on_owner() function should also return false if the
task needs to be rescheduled.
While I was staring at mutex_can_spin_on_owner(); don't we need this?
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 4dd6e4c219de..480d2f437964 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -214,8 +214,10 @@ static inline int mutex_can_spin_on_owner(struct mutex
*lock)
rcu_read_lock();
owner = ACCESS_ONCE(lock-owner);
- if (owner)
+ if (owner) {
That is, its an unmatched barrier, as mutex_set_owner() doesn't include
a barrier, and I don't think i needs to; but on alpha we still need this
read barrier to ensure we do not mess up this related load afaik.
Paul? can you explain an unpaired read_barrier_depends?
+ smp_read_barrier_depends();
retval = owner-on_cpu;
+ }
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* if lock-owner is not set, the mutex owner may have just acquired
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
