From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org>
Cc: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>,
Wang Chen <wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex.
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:26:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1235082372.4612.665.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <499DC8EC.3000806@shipmail.org>
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:02 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>
> It looks to me like the driver preferred locking order is
>
> object_mutex (which happens to be the device global struct_mutex)
> mmap_sem
> offset_mutex.
>
> So if one could avoid using the struct_mutex for object bookkeeping (A
> separate lock) then
> vm_open() and vm_close() would adhere to that locking order as well,
> simply by not taking the struct_mutex at all.
>
> So only fault() remains, in which that locking order is reversed.
> Personally I think the trylock ->reschedule->retry method with proper
> commenting is a good solution. It will be the _only_ place where locking
> order is reversed and it is done in a deadlock-safe manner. Note that
> fault() doesn't really fail, but requests a retry from user-space with
> rescheduling to give the process holding the struct_mutex time to
> release it.
It doesn't do the reschedule -- need_resched() will check if the current
task was marked to be scheduled away, furthermore yield based locking
sucks chunks.
What's so very difficult about pulling the copy_*_user() out from under
the locks?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-19 22:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-18 0:59 [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex Eric Anholt
2009-02-18 8:02 ` Wang Chen
2009-02-18 16:38 ` [PATCH] drm: Take mmap_sem up front to avoid lock order violations krh
2009-02-19 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-19 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-19 14:49 ` Kristian Høgsberg
2009-02-19 15:17 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-19 15:21 ` Kristian Høgsberg
2009-02-19 12:57 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-21 2:33 ` Eric Anholt
2009-02-18 15:08 ` [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-19 21:02 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2009-02-19 22:26 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-02-20 2:04 ` Eric Anholt
2009-02-20 7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-25 8:15 ` Eric Anholt
2009-02-25 8:54 ` Thomas Hellström
2009-02-25 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-20 8:31 ` Thomas Hellstrom
2009-02-20 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1235082372.4612.665.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=eric@anholt.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=thomas@shipmail.org \
--cc=wangchen@cn.fujitsu.com \
/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