From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:42:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141026074257.GC10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410260019280.5308@nanos>
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:21:31AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > > Does the RT kernel just disallow this sort of algorithm?
> >
> > Yes. For a good reason. Let's add thread C
> >
> > A B C
> > down_read(X)
> > down_write(X)
> > lock(Y)
> > modify data
> > unlock(Y)
> > wake(B)
> > down_read(X)
> >
> > Due to the mainline rwsem fairness semantics:
> >
> > A holds X, C is blocked on A and B is blocked on A.
> >
> > Deadlock, without RT and the single reader restriction being involved.
> >
> > So RT does not violate ANY of the existing mainline semantics, it just
> > imposes a performance impact of not allowing multiple readers.
>
> @peterz: It might be worthwhile to have a CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y dependent
> mode which restricts concurrent readers to 1 in mainline to catch this
> kind of stuff. Hmm?
There were patches by ego that fix lockdep's read side tracking. I need
to find a few spare days to look at those :/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-26 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-23 19:27 semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch Chris Friesen
2014-10-25 22:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-25 22:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-26 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-10-26 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-27 15:02 ` Chris Friesen
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=20141026074257.GC10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=chris.friesen@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.