Re: [PATCH] sched; Simplify mutex_spin_on_owner()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 06:04:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > It does not make sense to rcu_read_lock/unlock() in every loop
> > iteration while spinning on the mutex.
> > 
> > Move the rcu protection once outside the loop. Also simplify the
> > return path to always check for lock->owner == NULL which meets the
> > requirements of both owner changed and need_resched() caused loop
> > exits.
> 
> Interesting.  If the spin was preempted in the new form, then
> RCU priority boosting would boost the priority of the task spinning
> on the mutex.  My guess is that this would happen rarely enough
> to not be a problem, but other thoughts?

And if it does turn out to be a problem, one way to handle it would
be for me to provide an rcu_boosted_me() or some such that checks
the bit in the task structure, and then add something like the
following to your patch, which would momentarily exit the RCU
read-side critical section in order to deboost.

Thoughts?

							Thanx, Paul

> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched.c |   25 +++++++++----------------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -4306,11 +4306,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(schedule);
> > 
> >  static inline bool owner_running(struct mutex *lock, struct task_struct *owner)
> >  {
> > -	bool ret = false;
> > -
> > -	rcu_read_lock();
> >  	if (lock->owner != owner)
> > -		goto fail;
> > +		return false;
> > 
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_ checking
> > @@ -4320,11 +4317,7 @@ static inline bool owner_running(struct 
> >  	 */
> >  	barrier();
> > 
> > -	ret = owner->on_cpu;
> > -fail:
> > -	rcu_read_unlock();
> > -
> > -	return ret;
> > +	return owner->on_cpu;
> >  }
> > 
> >  /*
> > @@ -4336,21 +4329,21 @@ int mutex_spin_on_owner(struct mutex *lo
> >  	if (!sched_feat(OWNER_SPIN))
> >  		return 0;
> > 
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> >  	while (owner_running(lock, owner)) {
> >  		if (need_resched())
> > -			return 0;
> > +			break;

		if (rcu_boosted_me()) {
			rcu_read_unlock();
			rcu_read_lock();
		}

> >  		arch_mutex_cpu_relax();
> >  	}
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > 
> >  	/*
> > -	 * If the owner changed to another task there is likely
> > -	 * heavy contention, stop spinning.
> > +	 * We break out the loop above on need_resched() and when the
> > +	 * owner changed, which is a sign for heavy contention. Return
> > +	 * success only when lock->owner is NULL.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (lock->owner)
> > -		return 0;
> > -
> > -	return 1;
> > +	return lock->owner == NULL;
> >  }
> >  #endif
> > 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/