Re: [BUG]locking/rwsem: only clean RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF when already set

[Waiman Long]

On 11/11/21 16:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 11/11/21 16:01, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > On 11/11/21 15:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:36:52PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -434,6 +430,7 @@ static void rwsem_mark_wake(struct
> > > > > rw_semaphore *sem,
> > > > >                if (!(oldcount & RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF) &&
> > > > >                    time_after(jiffies, waiter->timeout)) {
> > > > >                    adjustment -= RWSEM_FLAG_HANDOFF;
> > > > > +                waiter->handoff_set = true;
> > > > >                    lockevent_inc(rwsem_rlock_handoff);
> > > > >                }
> > > > Do we really need this flag? Wouldn't it be the same as waiter-is-first
> > > > AND sem-has-handoff ?
> > > That is true. The only downside is that we have to read the count first
> > > in rwsem_out_nolock_clear_flags(). Since this is not a fast path, it
> > > should be OK to do that.
> > I just realize that I may still need this flag for writer to determine if it
> > should spin after failing to acquire the lock. Or I will have to do extra
> > read of count value in the loop. I don't need to use it for writer now.
> Maybe it's too late here, but afaict this is right after failing
> try_write_lock(), which will have done at least that load you're
> interested in, no?
>
> Simply have try_write_lock() update &count or something.

You are right. I have actually decided to do an extra read after second 
thought.

Cheers,
Longman