[PATCH] kernel: Introduce a write lock/unlock wrapper for tasklist_lock

[Aiqun Yu (Maria)]

On 1/4/2024 2:18 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:58:33AM +0800, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote:
>> On 1/2/2024 5:14 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>> -void __lockfunc queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>>>> +void __lockfunc queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock, bool irq)
>>>>>     {
>>>>>     	int cnts;
>>>>> @@ -82,7 +83,11 @@ void __lockfunc queued_write_lock_slowpath(struct qrwlock *lock)
>>>> Also a new state showed up after the current design:
>>>> 1. locked flag with _QW_WAITING, while irq enabled.
>>>> 2. And this state will be only in interrupt context.
>>>> 3. lock->wait_lock is hold by the write waiter.
>>>> So per my understanding, a different behavior also needed to be done in
>>>> queued_write_lock_slowpath:
>>>>     when (unlikely(in_interrupt())) , get the lock directly.
>>>
>>> I don't think so.  Remember that write_lock_irq() can only be called in
>>> process context, and when interrupts are enabled.
>> In current kernel drivers, I can see same lock called with write_lock_irq
>> and write_lock_irqsave in different drivers.
>>
>> And this is the scenario I am talking about:
>> 1. cpu0 have task run and called write_lock_irq.(Not in interrupt context)
>> 2. cpu0 hold the lock->wait_lock and re-enabled the interrupt.
> 
> Oh, I missed that it was holding the wait_lock.  Yes, we also need to
> release the wait_lock before spinning with interrupts disabled.
> 
>> I was thinking to support both write_lock_irq and write_lock_irqsave with
>> interrupt enabled together in queued_write_lock_slowpath.
>>
>> That's why I am suggesting in write_lock_irqsave when (in_interrupt()),
>> instead spin for the lock->wait_lock, spin to get the lock->cnts directly.
> 
> Mmm, but the interrupt could come in on a different CPU and that would
> lead to it stealing the wait_lock from the CPU which is merely waiting
> for the readers to go away.
That's right.
The fairness(or queue mechanism) wouldn't be ensured (only in interrupt 
context) if we have the special design when (in_interrupt()) spin to get 
the lock->cnts directly. When in interrupt context, the later 
write_lock_irqsave may get the lock earlier than the write_lock_irq() 
which is not in interrupt context.

This is a side effect of the design, while similar unfairness design in 
read lock as well. I think it is reasonable to have in_interrupt() 
waiters get lock earlier from the whole system's performance of view.
> 

-- 
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu