Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv2 1/3] rwlock: Add per-cpu reader-writer locks

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.11.15 at 17:03, <malcolm.crossley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/spinlock.c
> +++ b/xen/common/spinlock.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <asm/atomic.h>
>  
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_t, percpu_rwlock_readers);

static (and perhaps even local to _percpu_write_lock()).

> @@ -492,6 +494,42 @@ int _rw_is_write_locked(rwlock_t *lock)
>      return (lock->lock == RW_WRITE_FLAG); /* writer in critical section? */
>  }
>  
> +void _percpu_write_lock(percpu_rwlock_t **per_cpudata,
> +             percpu_rwlock_t *percpu_rwlock)
> +{
> +    unsigned int cpu;
> +
> +    /* First take the write lock to protect against other writers. */

... or slow path readers.

> +    write_lock(&percpu_rwlock->rwlock);
> +
> +    /* Now set the global variable so that readers start using read_lock. */
> +    percpu_rwlock->writer_activating = 1;
> +    smp_mb();
> +
> +    /* Using a per cpu cpumask is only safe if there is no nesting. */
> +    ASSERT(!in_irq());
> +    this_cpu(percpu_rwlock_readers) = cpu_online_map;

cpumask_copy() please, to avoid copying perhaps half a kb on a
pretty small system.

> +    /* Check if there are any percpu readers in progress on this rwlock. */
> +    for ( ; ; )
> +    {
> +        for_each_cpu(cpu, &this_cpu(percpu_rwlock_readers))

No more than one this_cpu{,_ptr}() please within one function.

> +        {
> +            /* 
> +          * Remove any percpu readers not contending on this rwlock
> +             * from our check mask.
> +          */

Hard tabs.

> +            if ( per_cpu_ptr(per_cpudata, cpu) != percpu_rwlock )
> +                cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &this_cpu(percpu_rwlock_readers));

__cpumask_clear_cpu()

> +static inline void _percpu_read_lock(percpu_rwlock_t **per_cpudata,

const?

> +#define percpu_read_lock(percpu, lock) ( _percpu_read_lock( \
> +                                        &get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock ) )
> +#define percpu_read_unlock(percpu, lock) ( _percpu_read_unlock( \
> +                                        &get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock ) )
> +#define percpu_write_lock(percpu, lock) ( _percpu_write_lock( \
> +                                        &get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock ) )
> +#define percpu_write_unlock(percpu, lock) ( _percpu_write_unlock( lock ) )

Perhaps easier to read as

#define percpu_read_lock(percpu, lock) \
    _percpu_read_lock(&get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock)
#define percpu_read_unlock(percpu, lock) \
    _percpu_read_unlock(&get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock)
#define percpu_write_lock(percpu, lock) \
    _percpu_write_lock(&get_per_cpu_var(percpu), lock)
#define percpu_write_unlock(percpu, lock) _percpu_write_unlock(lock)

But at the very least the stray blanks and parentheses should be
dropped.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel