From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>,
Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Subject: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:23:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091008092632.7101.62229.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
Quote from Andrew:
"
- we have one or more processes sleeping in down_read(), waiting for access.
- we wake one or more processes up without altering ->activity
- they start to run and they do rwsem_is_locked(). This incorrectly
returns "false", because the waker process is still crunching away in
__rwsem_do_wake().
- the waker now alters ->activity, but it was too late.
"
So we need get a spinlock to protect this. And rwsem_is_locked()
should not block, thus we use spin_trylock.
Reported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
index 6c3c0f6..fb7efcb 100644
--- a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
@@ -71,7 +71,13 @@ extern void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- return (sem->activity != 0);
+ int ret = 1;
+
+ if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
+ ret = (sem->activity != 0);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
+ }
+ return ret;
}
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
index 9df3ca5..ec7804e 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
@@ -82,6 +82,10 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
+ /*
+ * Since rwsem_is_locked() reads ->activity with spinlock,
+ * not updating ->activity here is fine.
+ */
list_del(&waiter->list);
tsk = waiter->task;
smp_mb();
next reply other threads:[~2009-10-08 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-08 9:23 Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-10-08 10:45 ` [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs David Howells
2009-10-09 9:02 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-13 20:34 ` Andrew Morton
2009-10-14 9:32 ` Cong Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091008092632.7101.62229.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=behlendorf1@llnl.gov \
--cc=bwoodard@llnl.gov \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.