Re: [RFC PATCH] locking/rwsem: Add upgrade_read()

[Waiman Long]

On 9/22/21 4:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 03:36:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > Currently there are about 12 instances in the kernel where an up_read()
> > is immediately followed by a down_write() of the same lock. For example,
> >
> >    drivers/tty/n_tty.c:		up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> >    drivers/tty/n_tty.c-		down_write(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> And TTY is a high performance issue, that requires hacks like this?
I won't call it a hack. I consider it a better documentation what the 
real intention is.
> > Since we have already provided a downgrade_write() function, we may as
> > well provide an upgrade_read() function to make the code easier to read
> > and the intention clearer.
> >
> > If the current task is the only reader, the upgrade can be done by a
> > single atomic operation. If not, the upgrade will have to be done by a
> > separate up_read() call followed by a down_write(). In the former case,
> > the handoff bit is not considered and the waiter will have to wait a
> > bit longer to acquire the lock.
> >
> > The new upgrade_read() function returns a value of 0 for safe upgrade
> > where rwsem protected data won't change. Otherwise a value of 1 is
> > returned to indicate unsafe upgrade where rwsem protected data may
> > change during the upgrade process.
> Yuck...
>
> Is there any workload where this is a massive win? I'm thinking that
> either the lock is contended and you get the unsafe option which is the
> same as today, or the lock isn't contended and you would've gotten
> fast-paths and you barely safe anything anyway.
>
> Also, -ENODATA
Yes, the best case saving is just just an atomic op.

This is just a RFC. I can look for workloads that can benefit from using 
this.

Cheers,
Longman