Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/6] coroutine-lock: make CoRwlock thread-safe and fair

[Fam Zheng]

On Mon, 02/13 19:12, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> This adds a CoMutex around the existing CoQueue.  Because the write-side

s/CoQueue/CoRwlock/

> can just take CoMutex, the old "writer" field is not necessary anymore.
> Instead of removing it altogether, count the number of pending writers
> during a read-side critical section and forbid further readers from
> entering.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
> ---
>  include/qemu/coroutine.h   |  3 ++-
>  util/qemu-coroutine-lock.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/qemu/coroutine.h b/include/qemu/coroutine.h
> index d2de268..e60beaf 100644
> --- a/include/qemu/coroutine.h
> +++ b/include/qemu/coroutine.h
> @@ -204,8 +204,9 @@ bool qemu_co_queue_empty(CoQueue *queue);
>  
>  
>  typedef struct CoRwlock {
> -    bool writer;
> +    int pending_writer;
>      int reader;
> +    CoMutex mutex;
>      CoQueue queue;
>  } CoRwlock;
>  
> diff --git a/util/qemu-coroutine-lock.c b/util/qemu-coroutine-lock.c
> index b0a554f..6328eed 100644
> --- a/util/qemu-coroutine-lock.c
> +++ b/util/qemu-coroutine-lock.c
> @@ -346,16 +346,22 @@ void qemu_co_rwlock_init(CoRwlock *lock)
>  {
>      memset(lock, 0, sizeof(*lock));
>      qemu_co_queue_init(&lock->queue);
> +    qemu_co_mutex_init(&lock->mutex);
>  }
>  
>  void qemu_co_rwlock_rdlock(CoRwlock *lock)
>  {
>      Coroutine *self = qemu_coroutine_self();
>  
> -    while (lock->writer) {
> -        qemu_co_queue_wait(&lock->queue, NULL);
> +    qemu_co_mutex_lock(&lock->mutex);
> +    /* For fairness, wait if a writer is in line.  */
> +    while (lock->pending_writer) {
> +        qemu_co_queue_wait(&lock->queue, &lock->mutex);
>      }
>      lock->reader++;
> +    qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&lock->mutex);
> +
> +    /* The rest of the read-side critical section is run without the mutex.  
> */
>      self->locks_held++;
>  }
>  
> @@ -364,10 +370,13 @@ void qemu_co_rwlock_unlock(CoRwlock *lock)
>      Coroutine *self = qemu_coroutine_self();
>  
>      assert(qemu_in_coroutine());
> -    if (lock->writer) {
> -        lock->writer = false;
> +    if (!lock->reader) {
> +        /* The critical section started in qemu_co_rwlock_wrlock.  */
>          qemu_co_queue_restart_all(&lock->queue);
>      } else {
> +        self->locks_held--;
> +
> +        qemu_co_mutex_lock(&lock->mutex);
>          lock->reader--;
>          assert(lock->reader >= 0);
>          /* Wakeup only one waiting writer */
> @@ -375,16 +384,20 @@ void qemu_co_rwlock_unlock(CoRwlock *lock)
>              qemu_co_queue_next(&lock->queue);
>          }
>      }
> -    self->locks_held--;
> +    qemu_co_mutex_unlock(&lock->mutex);
>  }
>  
>  void qemu_co_rwlock_wrlock(CoRwlock *lock)
>  {
> -    Coroutine *self = qemu_coroutine_self();
> -
> -    while (lock->writer || lock->reader) {
> -        qemu_co_queue_wait(&lock->queue, NULL);
> +    qemu_co_mutex_lock(&lock->mutex);
> +    lock->pending_writer++;
> +    while (lock->reader) {
> +        qemu_co_queue_wait(&lock->queue, &lock->mutex);
>      }
> -    lock->writer = true;
> -    self->locks_held++;
> +    lock->pending_writer--;
> +
> +    /* The rest of the write-side critical section is run with
> +     * the mutex taken, so that lock->reader remains zero.
> +     * There is no need to update self->locks_held.
> +     */

But is it still better to update self->locks_held anyway for the
'assert(!co->locks_held)' in qemu_coroutine_enter? Or is the same thing checked
elsewhere?

Fam