On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:47:31AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Hmmm.... so it looks like the rw_semaphore behavior has shifted over
> time, then?
Yes.
> I thought rwsem was supposed to queue read and write waiters in order,
> at least on x86? Though I suppose that might not matter much since we
> can only run one writer at a time vs. waking up all the readers at once.
> Now I'm wondering if there ever was a time when the readers all got
> batched to the front and starved the writers, but eh I haven't drank
> enough coffee to remember things like that. :P
>
> (I wonder what would happen if rw_semaphore decided to wake up some
> number of the readers in the rwsem wait_list, not just the ones at the
> front...)
rwsems currently allow a limited amount of queue-jumping; if a semaphore
is currently not acquired (it's in transition between two owners), a
running process can acquire it.
I think it is a bug that we only wake readers at the front of the queue;
I think we would get better performance if we wake all readers. ie here:
/*
- * Grant an infinite number of read locks to the readers at the front
- * of the queue. We know that woken will be at least 1 as we accounted
+ * Grant an infinite number of read locks. We know that woken will
+ * be at least 1 as we accounted
* for above. Note we increment the 'active part' of the count by the
* number of readers before waking any processes up.
*/
list_for_each_entry_safe(waiter, tmp, &sem->wait_list, list) {
struct task_struct *tsk;
- if (waiter->type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_WRITE)
- break;
Amir, it seems like you have a good test-case for trying this out ...
