All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:23 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ACDADAB.3030403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13922.1254917951@redhat.com>

David Howells wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>  static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>  {
>> -	return (sem->activity != 0);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
>> +		ret = !(list_empty(&sem->wait_list) && sem->activity == 0);
>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +	return 1;
>>  }
> 
> Yep...  This seems a reasonable approach, though I contend that if you're
> holding the spinlock, then sem->wait_list _must_ be empty if sem->activity is
> 0 - so that half of the test is redundant.
> 
> sem->activity == 0 and sem->wait_list not being empty is a transitional state
> that can only occur in ups and downgrades whilst they hold the spinlock.
> 


Hmm, yeah...

>> diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> index 9df3ca5..234d83f 100644
>> --- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> +++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> @@ -78,7 +78,12 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>>  
>>  	/* grant an infinite number of read locks to the front of the queue */
>>   dont_wake_writers:
>> -	woken = 0;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * we increase ->activity just to make rwsem_is_locked() happy,
>> +	 * to avoid potential cache line ping-pong, we don't do this
>> +	 * within the following loop.
>> +	 */
>> +	woken = sem->activity++;
>>  	while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
>>  		struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
>>  
>> @@ -94,7 +99,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>>  		waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	sem->activity += woken;
>> +	sem->activity = woken;
>>  
>>   out:
>>  	return sem;
> 
> This change to __rwsem_do_wake() is all unnecessary - you're defending against
> the test of sem->activity by rwsem_is_locked() - but that now happens with the
> spinlock held.

Ah, yes, I knew this, I kept this just for completeness.
I will remove this part then. :)

THanks!


      reply	other threads:[~2009-10-08  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-06  6:55 [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs Amerigo Wang
2009-10-07  9:41 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-07 12:19 ` David Howells
2009-10-08  9:15   ` Amerigo Wang [this message]

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=4ACDADAB.3030403@redhat.com \
    --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.