From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/46] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of
	Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:20:11 +0100
Message-ID: <20130228182011.GA4373@redhat.com>
References: <CACvQF51jCxk5jUqmhD=QBBtUsBkQWZzakacrKO4Gsk=w61rNwQ@mail.gmail.com> <512C7A38.8060906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CACvQF51RvhM8XNqu3-1OTQ=cZUZ=pAX+_zx0a29+W67N1X+BgQ@mail.gmail.com> <512CC509.1050000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CACvQF50UgiqPpDk3HCmV86zKSf6tPjqr0bZowfPEOJs0g0r0MQ@mail.gmail.com> <512D0D67.9010609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CANN689FuuEb9wpV43DkTtgv6syvBYL-LQxByWznyAq8dkrhzBw@mail.gmail.com> <20130227192551.GA8333@redhat.com> <CANN689EhqoQAKALR7WhT3YrQh3=VDA2Dq3QX1yLuYU_gZAo_Tg@mail.gmail.com> <20130228180007.GA3537@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130228180007.GA3537@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@gmail.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, rostedt@goodmis.org, rjw@sisk.pl, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, sbw@mit.edu, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 02/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/28, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On 02/27, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> > >> +{
> > >> +       preempt_disable();
> > >> +
> > >> +       if (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->local_refcnt) ||
> > >> +           arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lgrw->lglock->lock))) {
> > >> +               __this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->local_refcnt);
> > >
> > > Please look at __this_cpu_generic_to_op(). You need this_cpu_inc()
> > > to avoid the race with irs. The same for _read_unlock.
> >
> > Hmmm, I was thinking that this was safe because while interrupts might
> > modify local_refcnt to acquire a nested read lock, they are expected
> > to release that lock as well which would set local_refcnt back to its
> > original value ???
>
> Yes, yes, this is correct.
>
> I meant that (in general, x86 is fine) __this_cpu_inc() itself is not
> irq-safe. It simply does "pcp += 1".
>
> this_cpu_inc() is fine, _this_cpu_generic_to_op() does cli/sti around.

Just in case, it is not that I really understand why __this_cpu_inc() can
race with irq in this particular case (given that irq handler should
restore the counter).

So perhaps I am wrong again. The comments in include/linux/percpu.h look
confusing to me, and I simply know nothing about !x86 architectures. But
since, say, preempt_disable() doesn't do anything special then probably
__this_cpu_inc() is fine too.

In short: please ignore me ;)

Oleg.