public inbox for linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] reader-writer livelock problem
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 17:25:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-ia64-105590709805359@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590709805355@msgid-missing>

On 8 Nov 2002, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> The normal way of solving this fairness problem is to make pending write
> locks block read lock attempts, so that the reader count is guaranteed
> to drop to zero as read locks are released.  I haven't looked at the
> Linux implementation of rwlocks, so I don't know how hard this is to
> do.  Or perhaps there's some other reason for not implementing it this
> way?

There's another reason for not doing it that way: allowing readers to keep 
interrupts on even in the presense of interrupt uses of readers.

If you do the "pending writes stop readers" approach, you get

		cpu1			cpu2

		read_lock() - get

					write_lock_irq() - pending

		irq happens
		 - read_lock() - deadlock

and that means that you need to make readers protect against interrupts 
even if the interrupts only read themselves.

NOTE! I'm not saying the existing practice is necessarily a good tradeoff,
and maybe we should just make sure to find all such cases and turn the
read_lock() calls into read_lock_irqsave() and then make the rw-locks
block readers on pending writers. But it's certainly more work and cause
for subtler problems than just naively changing the rw implementation.

		Linus



  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-11-08 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-11-08  3:23 [Linux-ia64] reader-writer livelock problem Van Maren, Kevin
2002-11-08 17:13 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2002-11-08 17:25 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2002-11-08 17:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-11-08 17:34 ` David Howells
2002-11-08 17:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2002-11-08 17:41 ` Van Maren, Kevin
2002-11-08 17:43 ` David Howells
2002-11-08 17:52 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-11-08 17:54 ` David Howells
2002-11-08 17:55 ` Stephen Hemminger
2002-11-08 18:05 ` Van Maren, Kevin
2002-11-08 19:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-11-08 19:26 ` David Mosberger
2002-11-08 20:17 ` Van Maren, Kevin
2002-11-08 20:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-11-09  2:48 ` Rusty Russell
2002-11-11 16:29 ` Mario Smarduch
2002-11-11 20:01 ` [Linux-ia64] reader-writer livelock proble Mario Smarduch

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=marc-linux-ia64-105590709805359@msgid-missing \
    --to=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox