Re: [PATCH 5/6] locking/rwsem: Unify wait loop

[Boqun Feng]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 01:26:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now that the reader and writer wait loops are identical, share the
> code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rwsem.c |  117 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> @@ -650,13 +650,11 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_se
>   * optionally wake up waiters before it returns.
>   */
>  static inline void
> -rwsem_del_wake_waiter(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct rwsem_waiter *waiter,
> -		      struct wake_q_head *wake_q)
> +rwsem_del_wake_waiter(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct rwsem_waiter *waiter)
>  		      __releases(&sem->wait_lock)
>  {
>  	bool first = rwsem_first_waiter(sem) == waiter;
> -
> -	wake_q_init(wake_q);
> +	DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If the wait_list isn't empty and the waiter to be deleted is
> @@ -664,10 +662,10 @@ rwsem_del_wake_waiter(struct rw_semaphor
>  	 * be eligible to acquire or spin on the lock.
>  	 */
>  	if (rwsem_del_waiter(sem, waiter) && first)
> -		rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, wake_q);
> +		rwsem_mark_wake(sem, RWSEM_WAKE_ANY, &wake_q);
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> -	if (!wake_q_empty(wake_q))
> -		wake_up_q(wake_q);
> +	if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q))
> +		wake_up_q(&wake_q);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -993,6 +991,46 @@ static inline void rwsem_cond_wake_waite
>  	rwsem_mark_wake(sem, wake_type, wake_q);
>  }
>  
> +#define waiter_type(_waiter, _r, _w)	\
> +	((_waiter)->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ ? (_r) : (_w))
> +
> +static __always_inline struct rw_semaphore *
> +rwsem_waiter_wait(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct rwsem_waiter *waiter, int state)
> +{
> +	trace_contention_begin(sem, waiter_type(waiter, LCB_F_READ, LCB_F_WRITE));
> +
> +	/* wait to be given the lock */
> +	for (;;) {
> +		set_current_state(state);
> +		if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->task)) {
> +			/* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s smp_store_release(). */
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> +			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);

Move the below __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING)s up here? I think we
need the preemption protection when changing the task state here.

> +			if (waiter->task)
> +				goto out_nolock;

I originally wanted to suggest renaming the label to "out_locked", but I
think we can just move the labeled code up here? And even open-code
rwsem_del_wake_waiter() since it only has one usage.


Regards,
Boqun

> +			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> +			/* Ordered by sem->wait_lock against rwsem_mark_wake(). */
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> +		lockevent_inc(waiter_type(waiter, rwsem_sleep_reader, rwsem_sleep_writer));
> +	}
> +
> +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +	lockevent_inc(waiter_type(waiter, rwsem_rlock, rwsem_wlock));
> +	trace_contention_end(sem, 0);
> +	return sem;
> +
> +out_nolock:
> +	rwsem_del_wake_waiter(sem, waiter);
> +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +	lockevent_inc(waiter_type(waiter, rwsem_rlock_fail, rwsem_wlock_fail));
> +	trace_contention_end(sem, -EINTR);
> +	return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Wait for the read lock to be granted
>   */
> @@ -1071,38 +1109,7 @@ rwsem_down_read_slowpath(struct rw_semap
>  	if (!wake_q_empty(&wake_q))
>  		wake_up_q(&wake_q);
>  
> -	trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_READ);
> -
> -	/* wait to be given the lock */
> -	for (;;) {
> -		set_current_state(state);
> -		if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter.task)) {
> -			/* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s smp_store_release(). */
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> -			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> -			if (waiter.task)
> -				goto out_nolock;
> -			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> -			/* Ordered by sem->wait_lock against rwsem_mark_wake(). */
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> -		lockevent_inc(rwsem_sleep_reader);
> -	}
> -
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> -	lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock);
> -	trace_contention_end(sem, 0);
> -	return sem;
> -
> -out_nolock:
> -	rwsem_del_wake_waiter(sem, &waiter, &wake_q);
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> -	lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_fail);
> -	trace_contention_end(sem, -EINTR);
> -	return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> +	return rwsem_waiter_wait(sem, &waiter, state);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1150,37 +1157,7 @@ rwsem_down_write_slowpath(struct rw_sema
>  	}
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>  
> -	/* wait until we successfully acquire the lock */
> -	trace_contention_begin(sem, LCB_F_WRITE);
> -
> -	for (;;) {
> -		set_current_state(state);
> -		if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter.task)) {
> -			/* Matches rwsem_waiter_wake()'s smp_store_release(). */
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> -			raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> -			if (waiter.task)
> -				goto out_nolock;
> -			raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> -			/* Ordered by sem->wait_lock against rwsem_mark_wake(). */
> -			break;
> -		}
> -		schedule_preempt_disabled();
> -		lockevent_inc(rwsem_sleep_writer);
> -	}
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> -	lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock);
> -	trace_contention_end(sem, 0);
> -	return sem;
> -
> -out_nolock:
> -	rwsem_del_wake_waiter(sem, &waiter, &wake_q);
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> -	lockevent_inc(rwsem_wlock_fail);
> -	trace_contention_end(sem, -EINTR);
> -	return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
> +	return rwsem_waiter_wait(sem, &waiter, state);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> 
>