Re: [PATCHv3 6/6] tty/ldsem: Decrement wait_readers on timeouted down_read()

[Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>]

On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 14:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 02:48:21AM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > It seems like when ldsem_down_read() fails with timeout, it misses
> > update for sem->wait_readers. By that reason, when writer finally
> > releases write end of the semaphore __ldsem_wake_readers() does
> > adjust
> > sem->count with wrong value:
> > sem->wait_readers * (LDSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS - LDSEM_WAIT_BIAS)
> > 
> > I.e, if update comes with 1 missed wait_readers decrement, sem-
> > >count
> > will be 0x100000001 which means that there is active reader and
> > it'll
> > make any further writer to fail in acquiring the semaphore.
> > 
> > It looks like, this is a dead-code, because ldsem_down_read() is
> > never
> > called with timeout different than MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT, so it
> > might be
> > worth to delete timeout parameter and error path fall-back..
> 
> You might want to think about ditching that ldsem thing entirely, and
> use a regular rwsem ?

Yeah, but AFAICS, regular rwsem will need to have a timeout then (for
write). So, I thought fixing this pile would be simpler than adding
timeout and probably writer-priority to generic rwsem?

And I guess, we still will need fixes for stable for the bugs here..

I expect that timeouts are ABI, while the gain of adding priority may
be measured. I'll give it a shot (adding timeout/priority for linux-
next) to rwsem if you say it's acceptable.

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry