Re: [PATCH 2/7] locking/rwsem: more aggressive use of optimistic spinning
From: Jason Low <hidden>
Date: 2014-08-04 04:10:56
Also in:
lkml
On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 22:36 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() function currently allows optimistic spinning only if the owner field is defined and is running. That is too conservative as it will cause some tasks to miss the opportunity of doing spinning in case the owner hasn't been able to set the owner field in time or the lock has just become available. This patch enables more aggressive use of optimistic spinning by assuming that the lock is spinnable unless proved otherwise. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <redacted> --- kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c index d058946..dce22b8 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ static inline bool rwsem_try_write_lock_unqueued(struct rw_semaphore *sem) static inline bool rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem) { struct task_struct *owner; - bool on_cpu = false; + bool on_cpu = true; /* Assume spinnable unless proved not to be */
Hi, So "on_cpu = true" was recently converted to "on_cpu = false" in order to address issues such as a 5x performance regression in the xfs_repair workload that was caused by the original rwsem optimistic spinning code. However, patch 4 in this patchset does address some of the problems with spinning when there are readers. CC'ing Dave Chinner, who did the testing with the xfs_repair workload.