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 03:26:35PM +0100, 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?

Sorry, that should be atomic_sub, not atomic_dec.

Thanks, Roger.

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