Hi Lai, I'm really not convinced that piggy-backing on lglocks would help us in any way. But still, let me try to address some of the points you raised... On 02/26/2013 06:29 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat > <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 02/26/2013 05:47 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat >>> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Lai, >>>> >>>> On 02/25/2013 09:23 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: >>>>> Hi, Srivatsa, >>>>> >>>>> The target of the whole patchset is nice for me. >>>> >>>> Cool! Thanks :-) >>>> >> [...] >> >> Unfortunately, I see quite a few issues with the code above. IIUC, the >> writer and the reader both increment the same counters. So how will the >> unlock() code in the reader path know when to unlock which of the locks? > > The same as your code, the reader(which nested in write C.S.) just dec > the counters. And that works fine in my case because the writer and the reader update _two_ _different_ counters. If both of them update the same counter, there will be a semantic clash - an increment of the counter can either mean that a new writer became active, or it can also indicate a nested reader. A decrement can also similarly have 2 meanings. And thus it will be difficult to decide the right action to take, based on the value of the counter. > >> (The counter-dropping-to-zero logic is not safe, since it can be updated >> due to different reasons). And now that I look at it again, in the absence >> of the writer, the reader is allowed to be recursive at the heavy cost of >> taking the global rwlock for read, every 2nd time you nest (because the >> spinlock is non-recursive). > > (I did not understand your comments of this part) > nested reader is considered seldom. No, nested readers can be _quite_ frequent. Because, potentially all users of preempt_disable() are readers - and its well-known how frequently we nest preempt_disable(). As a simple example, any atomic reader who calls smp_call_function() will become a nested reader, because smp_call_function() itself is a reader. So reader nesting is expected to be quite frequent. > But if N(>=2) nested readers happen, > the overhead is: > 1 spin_try_lock() + 1 read_lock() + (N-1) __this_cpu_inc() > In my patch, its just this_cpu_inc(). Note that these are _very_ hot paths. So every bit of optimization that you can add is worthwhile. And your read_lock() is a _global_ lock - thus, it can lead to a lot of cache-line bouncing. That's *exactly* why I have used per-cpu refcounts in my synchronization scheme, to avoid taking the global rwlock as much as possible. Another important point to note is that, the overhead we are talking about here, exists even when _not_ performing hotplug. And its the replacement to the super-fast preempt_disable(). So its extremely important to consciously minimize this overhead - else we'll end up slowing down the system significantly. >> Also, this lg_rwlock implementation uses 3 >> different data-structures - a per-cpu spinlock, a global rwlock and >> a per-cpu refcnt, and its not immediately apparent why you need those many >> or even those many varieties. > > data-structures is the same as yours. > fallback_reader_refcnt <--> reader_refcnt This has semantic problems, as noted above. > per-cpu spinlock <--> write_signal Acquire/release of (spin) lock is costlier than inc/dec of a counter, IIUC. > fallback_rwlock <---> global_rwlock > >> Also I see that this doesn't handle the >> case of interrupt-handlers also being readers. > > handled. nested reader will see the ref or take the fallback_rwlock > I'm not referring to simple nested readers here, but interrupt handlers who can act as readers. For starters, the arch_spin_trylock() is not safe when interrupt handlers can also run the same code, right? You'll need to save and restore interrupts at critical points in the code. Also, the __foo() variants used to read/update the counters are not interrupt-safe. And, the unlock() code in the reader path is again going to be confused about what to do when interrupt handlers interrupt regular readers, due to the messed up refcount. >> >> IMHO, the per-cpu rwlock scheme that I have implemented in this patchset >> has a clean, understandable design and just enough data-structures/locks >> to achieve its goal and has several optimizations (like reducing the >> interrupts-disabled time etc) included - all in a very straight-forward >> manner. Since this is non-trivial, IMHO, starting from a clean slate is >> actually better than trying to retrofit the logic into some locking scheme >> which we actively want to avoid (and hence effectively we aren't even >> borrowing anything from!). >> >> To summarize, if you are just pointing out that we can implement the same >> logic by altering lglocks, then sure, I acknowledge the possibility. >> However, I don't think doing that actually makes it better; it either >> convolutes the logic unnecessarily, or ends up looking _very_ similar to >> the implementation in this patchset, from what I can see. >> Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
