From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Received: from e28smtp09.in.ibm.com (e28smtp09.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.9])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "e28smtp09.in.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified))
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4892C02EC
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:58:13 +1100 (EST)
Received: from /spool/local
 by e28smtp09.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only!
 Violators will be prosecuted
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> from <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:26:31 +0530
Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59])
 by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122D9E004E
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:28:55 +0530 (IST)
Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64])
 by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id
 r1BCw4Yj32243810
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:28:04 +0530
Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
 by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id
 r1BCw47h015239
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:58:06 +1100
Message-ID: <5118EA6A.9040002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:26:10 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writer
 lock backend
References: <20130122073315.13822.27093.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
 <20130122073210.13822.50434.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
 <30708.1360586491@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <30708.1360586491@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.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, namhyung@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
 sbw@mit.edu, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 02/11/2013 06:11 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> We can use global rwlocks as shown below safely, without fear of deadlocks:
>>
>> Readers:
>>
>>          CPU 0                                CPU 1
>>          ------                               ------
>>
>> 1.    spin_lock(&random_lock);             read_lock(&my_rwlock);
>>
>>
>> 2.    read_lock(&my_rwlock);               spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> The lock order on CPU 0 is unsafe if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> and on CPU 1 if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 

Right..

> I presume you were specifically excluding these situations?
>

Yes.. Those cases are simple to find out and fix (by changing the
lock ordering). My main problem was with CPU 0 and CPU 1 as shown above..
... and using a global rwlock helps ease that part out.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat