On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 01:51:24PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 04/17/2019 10:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 01:22:54PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> @@ -650,6 +686,33 @@ __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(struct rw_semaphore
> >> *sem, int state)
> >> struct rwsem_waiter waiter;
> >> DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
> >>
> >> + if (!rwsem_can_spin_on_owner(sem))
> >> + goto queue;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Undo read bias from down_read() and do optimistic spinning.
> >> + */
> >> + atomic_long_add(-RWSEM_READER_BIAS, &sem->count);
> >> + adjustment = 0;
> >> + if (rwsem_optimistic_spin(sem, false)) {
> >> + unsigned long flags;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Opportunistically wake up other readers in the wait queue.
> >> + * It has another chance of wakeup at unlock time.
> >> + */
> >> + if ((atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_FLAG_WAITERS) &&
> >> + raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags)) {
> > why trylock?
> I used trylock to avoid getting stuck in the spinlock while holding a
> read lock on the rwsem.
Is that a real concern? I would think that not waking further readers
would, esp. under high contention, be a bigger deal.
