On 01/24/2013 01:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Srivatsa.
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:03:52AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Hmm.. I split it up into steps to help explain the reasoning behind
>> the code sufficiently, rather than spring all of the intricacies at
>> one go (which would make it very hard to write the changelog/comments
>> also). The split made it easier for me to document it well in the
>> changelog, because I could deal with reasonable chunks of code/complexity
>> at a time. IMHO that helps people reading it for the first time to
>> understand the logic easily.
>
> I don't know. It's a judgement call I guess. I personally would much
> prefer having ample documentation as comments in the source itself or
> as a separate Documentation/ file as that's what most people are gonna
> be looking at to figure out what's going on. Maybe just compact it a
> bit and add more in-line documentation instead?
>
OK, I'll think about this.
>>> The only two options are either punishing writers or identifying and
>>> updating all such possible deadlocks. percpu_rwsem does the former,
>>> right? I don't know how feasible the latter would be.
>>
>> I don't think we can avoid looking into all the possible deadlocks,
>> as long as we use rwlocks inside get/put_online_cpus_atomic() (assuming
>> rwlocks are fair). Even with Oleg's idea of using synchronize_sched()
>> at the writer, we still need to take care of locking rules, because the
>> synchronize_sched() only helps avoid the memory barriers at the reader,
>> and doesn't help get rid of the rwlocks themselves.
>
> Well, percpu_rwlock don't have to use rwlock for the slow path. It
> can implement its own writer starving locking scheme. It's not like
> implementing slow path global rwlock logic is difficult.
>
Great idea! So probably I could use atomic ops or something similar in the
slow path to implement the scheme we need...
>> CPU 0 CPU 1
>>
>> read_lock(&rwlock)
>>
>> write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0
>> //has acquired the lock for read
>>
>> read_lock(&rwlock)
>> ^^^^^
>> What happens here? Does CPU 0 start spinning (and hence deadlock) or will
>> it continue realizing that it already holds the rwlock for read?
>
> I don't think rwlock allows nesting write lock inside read lock.
> read_lock(); write_lock() will always deadlock.
>
Sure, I understand that :-) My question was, what happens when *two* CPUs
are involved, as in, the read_lock() is invoked only on CPU 0 whereas the
write_lock() is invoked on CPU 1.
For example, the same scenario shown above, but with slightly different
timing, will NOT result in a deadlock:
Scenario 2:
CPU 0 CPU 1
read_lock(&rwlock)
read_lock(&rwlock) //doesn't spin
write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0
//has acquired the lock for read
So I was wondering whether the "fairness" logic of rwlocks would cause
the second read_lock() to spin (in the first scenario shown above) because
a writer is already waiting (and hence new readers should spin) and thus
cause a deadlock.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
