locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation
On PREEMPT_RT, rw_semaphore and rwlock_t locks are unfair to writers. Readers can indefinitely acquire the lock unless the writer fully acquired the lock, which might never happen if there is always a reader in the critical section owning the lock. Mel Gorman reported that since LTP-20220121 the dio_truncate test case went from having 1 reader to having 16 readers and that number of readers is sufficient to prevent the down_write ever succeeding while readers exist. Eventually the test is killed after 30 minutes as a failure. Mel proposed a timeout to limit how long a writer can be blocked until the reader is forced into the slowpath. Thomas argued that there is no added value by providing this timeout. From a PREEMPT_RT point of view, there are no critical rw_semaphore or rwlock_t locks left where the reader must be preferred. Mitigate indefinite writer starvation by forcing the READER into the slowpath once the WRITER attempts to acquire the lock. Reported-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/877cwbq4cq.ffs@tglx Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230321161140.HMcQEhHb@linutronix.de Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
068550631f
commit
286deb7ec0
@ -72,15 +72,6 @@ static int __sched __rwbase_read_lock(struct rwbase_rt *rwb,
|
||||
int ret;
|
||||
|
||||
raw_spin_lock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Allow readers, as long as the writer has not completely
|
||||
* acquired the semaphore for write.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != WRITER_BIAS) {
|
||||
atomic_inc(&rwb->readers);
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rtm->wait_lock);
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Call into the slow lock path with the rtmutex->wait_lock
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user