On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 19:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 01:46 -0700, tip-bot for Tim Chen wrote: > > > Commit-ID: 3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805 > > > Gitweb: > > > http://git.kernel.org/tip/3cf2f34e1a3d4d5ff209d087925cf950e52f4805 > > > Author: Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> > > > AuthorDate: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:53:57 -0700 > > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > > > CommitDate: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:34:26 +0200 > > > > > > > Ingo, > > > > Can you pick up this version of the patch instead. I've updated the > > comments to reflect all cases for which the rwsem's count is less > > than WAITING_BIAS, as Peter has pointed out. > > Please send a delta patch against the one I applied - and also the > state diagram suggestion with Peter, once it's clear what form it > should take. I've yet to see a state diagram that was inferior to > equivalent textual description - is this case an exception to that? >
Ingo, The delta patch is included below. Thinking a bit more, the state diagram approach is not necessarily less verbose because the state is a tuple (count, wait queue state). After enumerating the states, we may wind up with very similar to what I have. Thanks. Tim --- >From 490e647f5144a27e09cb987a5216de100de6c253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Message-Id: <490e647f5144a27e09cb987a5216de100de6c253.1399287355.git.tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 03:53:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] rwsem: Update comments on rwsem count for count < WAITING_BIAS To: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com>, Alex Shi <alex....@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org>, Michel Lespinasse <wal...@google.com>, Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>, Peter Hurley <pe...@hurleysoftware.com>, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>, Paul E.McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jason Low <jason.l...@hp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Update the comments for rwsem count for the case where count < WAITING_BIAS. Also some clean up of comments and added explanation on how the rwsem_down_read_failed path uses the count field. Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com> --- kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c index b4219ff..a794aaa 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c @@ -12,24 +12,24 @@ #include <linux/export.h> /* - * Guide to the rw_semaphore's count field for common values. - * (32-bit case illustrated, similar for 64-bit) + * Guide to the rw_semaphore's count field. + * (32-bit count illustrated in descending order, similar for 64-bit count) * * 0x0000000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, no writer waiting - * X = #active_readers + #readers attempting to lock - * (X*ACTIVE_BIAS) + * where X = #active_readers + #readers attempting to lock + * count computed as (X*ACTIVE_BIAS) * - * 0x00000000 rwsem is unlocked, and no one is waiting for the lock or - * attempting to read lock or write lock. + * 0x00000000 (1) rwsem is unlocked, and no one is waiting for the lock or + * attempting to read lock or write lock. * * 0xffff000X (1) X readers active or attempting lock, with waiters for lock - * X = #active readers + # readers attempting lock + * where X = #active readers + #readers attempting lock * (X*ACTIVE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS) * (2) 1 writer attempting lock, no waiters for lock - * X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock + * where X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock * ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) * (3) 1 writer active, no waiters for lock - * X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock + * where X-1 = #active readers + #readers attempting lock * ((X-1)*ACTIVE_BIAS + ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS) * * 0xffff0001 (1) 1 reader active or attempting lock, waiters for lock @@ -43,19 +43,30 @@ * Note: writer can attempt to steal lock for this count by adding * ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in cmpxchg and checking the old count * - * 0xfffe0001 (1) 1 writer active, or attempting lock. Waiters on queue. - * (ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS) + * count < WAITING_BIAS + * (1) X writer active, Y writer(s) attempting lock, + * Z readers attempting lock, no waiters + * where X = 0 or 1, (X+Y) >= 2, Z >= 0 + * ((X+Y) * ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + Z * ACTIVE_BIAS) + * (2) X writer active, Y writer(s) attempting lock, + * Z readers attempting lock, waiters for lock + * where X = 0 or 1, (X+Y) >= 1, Z >= 0 + * ((X+Y) * ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS + Z * ACTIVE_BIAS + WAITING_BIAS) * * Note: Readers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_BIAS in down_read and checking * the count becomes more than 0 for successful lock acquisition, - * i.e. the case where there are only readers or nobody has lock. - * (1st and 2nd case above). + * i.e. the case where there are only readers locking or nobody has lock. + * (1st and 2nd case above). In rwsem_down_read failed, after + * putting itself on the wait queue, it will check again if there are + * only readers locking, nobody has lock or it is first in queue (1, 2, and + * 5th case), and call __rwsem_do_wake to wake up waiter at front + * of queue to attempt locking again. * * Writers attempt to lock by adding ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS in down_write and * checking the count becomes ACTIVE_WRITE_BIAS for successful lock * acquisition (i.e. nobody else has lock or attempts lock). If * unsuccessful, in rwsem_down_write_failed, we'll check to see if there - * are only waiters but none active (5th case above), and attempt to + * are only waiters but none active (5th case), and attempt to * steal the lock. * */ -- 1.7.11.7 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
