From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:03:22 -0500 Subject: [Cluster-devel] RFC: hold i_rwsem until aio completes In-Reply-To: <20200115144948.GB25201@ziepe.ca> References: <20200114161225.309792-1-hch@lst.de> <20200114192700.GC22037@ziepe.ca> <20200115065614.GC21219@lst.de> <20200115132428.GA25201@ziepe.ca> <20200115143347.GL2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200115144948.GB25201@ziepe.ca> Message-ID: <849239ff-d2d1-4048-da58-b4347e0aa2bd@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/15/20 9:49 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 03:33:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:24:28AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> >>> I was interested because you are talking about allowing the read/write side >>> of a rw sem to be held across a return to user space/etc, which is the >>> same basic problem. >> No it is not; allowing the lock to be held across userspace doesn't >> change the owner. This is a crucial difference, PI depends on there >> being a distinct owner. That said, allowing the lock to be held across >> userspace still breaks PI in that it completely wrecks the ability to >> analyze the critical section. > I'm not sure what you are contrasting? > > I was remarking that I see many places open code a rwsem using an > atomic and a completion specifically because they need to do the > things Christoph identified: > >> (1) no unlocking by another process than the one that acquired it >> (2) no return to userspace with locks held > As an example flow: obtain the read side lock, schedual a work queue, > return to user space, and unlock the read side from the work queue. We currently have down_read_non_owner() and up_read_non_owner() that perform the lock and unlock without lockdep tracking. Of course, that is a hack and their use must be carefully scrutinized to make sure that there is no deadlock or other potentially locking issues. Cheers, Longman