Re: [PATCH] locking/rwlocks: clean up of qrwlock

From: Waiman Long
Date: Wed Dec 17 2014 - 16:16:38 EST


On 12/16/2014 10:36 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
On 12/16/14 at 10:01am, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:00:40PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
In queue_read_lock_slowpath, when writer count becomes 0, we need
increment the read count and get the lock. Then need call
rspin_until_writer_unlock to check again if an incoming writer
steals the lock in the gap. But in rspin_until_writer_unlock
it only checks the writer count, namely low 8 bit of lock->cnts,
no need to subtract the reader count unit specifically. So remove
that subtraction to make it clearer, rspin_until_writer_unlock
just takes the actual lock->cnts as the 2nd argument.

And also change the code comment in queue_write_lock_slowpath to
make it more exact and explicit.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He<bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/qrwlock.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
index f956ede..ae66c10 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/qrwlock.c
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ void queue_read_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
while (atomic_read(&lock->cnts)& _QW_WMASK)
cpu_relax_lowlatency();

- cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts) - _QR_BIAS;
+ cnts = atomic_add_return(_QR_BIAS,&lock->cnts);
rspin_until_writer_unlock(lock, cnts);
Did you actually look at the ASM generated? I suspect your change makes
it bigger.

It does make it bigger. But it doesn't matter. Because in
rspin_until_writer_unlock it only compqre (cnts& _QW_WMASK)
with _QW_LOCKED. So using incremented reader count doesn't impact
the result. Anyway it will get the actual lock->cnts in
rspin_until_writer_unlock in next loop. I can't see why we need
subtract that reader count increment specifically.

When I read this code, thought there's some special usage. Finally I
realized it doesn't have special usage, and doesn't have to do that.

The "- _QR_BIAS" expression was added to simulate xadd() which is present in x86, but not in some other architectures. There is no equivalent functionality in the set of atomic helper functions. Anyway, I have no objection to the change as it is in the slowpath.

Acked-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/