Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] rwlock: allow recursive read locking when already locked in write mode

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:52:28PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.02.2020 15:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:41:59PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 21.02.2020 15:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:36:52PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 21.02.2020 10:10, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:20:06PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 20/02/2020 17:31, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>>>>> Allow a CPU already holding the lock in write mode to also lock it in
> >>>>>>> read mode. There's no harm in allowing read locking a rwlock that's
> >>>>>>> already owned by the caller (ie: CPU) in write mode. Allowing such
> >>>>>>> accesses is required at least for the CPU maps use-case.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In order to do this reserve 14bits of the lock, this allows to support
> >>>>>>> up to 16384 CPUs. Also reduce the write lock mask to 2 bits: one to
> >>>>>>> signal there are pending writers waiting on the lock and the other to
> >>>>>>> signal the lock is owned in write mode. Note the write related data
> >>>>>>> is using 16bits, this is done in order to be able to clear it (and
> >>>>>>> thus release the lock) using a 16bit atomic write.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This reduces the maximum number of concurrent readers from 16777216 to
> >>>>>>> 65536, I think this should still be enough, or else the lock field
> >>>>>>> can be expanded from 32 to 64bits if all architectures support atomic
> >>>>>>> operations on 64bit integers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FWIW, arm32 is able to support atomic operations on 64-bit integers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   static inline void _write_unlock(rwlock_t *lock)
> >>>>>>>   {
> >>>>>>> -    /*
> >>>>>>> -     * If the writer field is atomic, it can be cleared directly.
> >>>>>>> -     * Otherwise, an atomic subtraction will be used to clear it.
> >>>>>>> -     */
> >>>>>>> -    atomic_sub(_QW_LOCKED, &lock->cnts);
> >>>>>>> +    /* Since the writer field is atomic, it can be cleared directly. 
> >>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>> +    ASSERT(_is_write_locked_by_me(atomic_read(&lock->cnts)));
> >>>>>>> +    BUILD_BUG_ON(_QR_SHIFT != 16);
> >>>>>>> +    write_atomic((uint16_t *)&lock->cnts, 0);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think this is an abuse to cast an atomic_t() directly into a 
> >>>>>> uint16_t. You
> >>>>>> would at least want to use &lock->cnts.counter here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, I was wondering about this myself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Will wait for more comments, not sure whether this can be fixed upon
> >>>>> commit if there are no other issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's more than just adding another field specifier here. A cast like
> >>>> this one is endianness-unsafe, and hence a trap waiting for a big
> >>>> endian port attempt to fall into. At the very least this should cause
> >>>> a build failure on big endian systems, even better would be if it was
> >>>> endianness-safe.
> >>>
> >>> Why don't we leave the atomic_dec then?
> >>
> >> Because you need to invoke smp_processor_id() to calculate the value
> >> to use in the subtraction. I'm not meaning to say I'm entirely
> >> opposed (seeing how much of a discussion we're having), but the
> >> "simple write of zero" approach is certainly appealing.
> > 
> > Well, we could avoid the smp_processor_id() call and instead use:
> > 
> > atomic_sub(atomic_read(&lock->cnts) & 0xffff, &lock->cnts);
> 
> Which would make me suggest atomic_and() again.

I'm certainly not opposed to that, but in order to get this regression
fixed I would argue that such atomic_sub is no worse than what's
currently done.

I can look into adding an atomic_and operation to all arches, but this
is likely to take time and I would like to get this sorted sooner
rather than later.

Thanks, Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel