On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >>if (!bo_tryreserve()) {
> >> up_read mmap_sem(); // Release the mmap_sem to avoid deadlocks.
> >> bo_reserve(); // Wait for the BO to become available
> >> (interruptible)
> >> bo_unreserve(); // Where is bo_wait_unreserved() when we
> >> need it, Maarten :P
> >> return VM_FAULT_RETRY; // Go ahead and retry the VMA walk, after
> >> regrabbing
> >>}
>
> Anyway, could you describe what is wrong, with the above solution, because
> it seems perfectly legal to me.
Luckily the rule of law doesn't have anything to do with this stuff --
at least I sincerely hope so.
The thing that's wrong with that pattern is that its still not
deterministic - although its a lot better than the pure trylock. Because
you have to release and re-acquire with the trylock another user might
have gotten in again. Its utterly prone to starvation.
The acquire+release does remove the dead/life-lock scenario from the
FIFO case, since blocking on the acquire will allow the other task to
run (or even get boosted on -rt).
Aside from that there's nothing particularly wrong with it and lockdep
should be happy afaict (but I haven't had my morning juice yet).
--
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/
