From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: R/W semaphore changes
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:21:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060704132135.GA7816@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15345.1152018339@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
* David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> They still aren't allowed to. Consider:
>
> CPU 1 CPU 2
> ======================= =======================
> -->down_read(&A);
> <--down_read(&A);
> -->down_write(&A);
> --- SLEEPING ---
> -->down_read(&A);
> --- DEADLOCKED ---
i think you misunderstood what nested locking means in the lockdep case.
(and that is my fault, for not adding enough documentation to
down_write_nested() and down_read_nested().)
nested locking does not mean the same instance is allowed to nest! It
only allows different-instance nesting, 'nesting within the same lock
class'. (Lockdep has a very broad notion of 'lock class', to achieve the
collection of very generic locking rules and to do as generic validation
as possible. See Documentation/lockdep-design.txt for more details.)
Rw-locks on the other hand have special permission to nest for the same
instance too. See commit 6c9076ec9cd448f43bbda871352a7067f456ee26:
lockdep so far only allowed read-recursion for the same lock instance.
This is enough in the overwhelming majority of cases, but a hostap case
triggered and reported by Miles Lane relies on same-class
different-instance recursion. So we relax the restriction on read-lock
recursion.
(This change does not allow rwsem read-recursion, which is still
forbidden.)
also please see the testcases in lib/locking-selftest.c, we specifically
test the rwsem scenario you outlined above, to make sure the validator
immediately flags it:
------------------------
| Locking API testsuite:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
recursive read-lock: | ok | | ok |
recursive read-lock #2: | ok | | ok |
[...]
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-04 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-04 12:47 R/W semaphore changes David Howells
2006-07-04 12:52 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-07-04 13:05 ` David Howells
2006-07-04 13:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-07-04 13:21 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-07-04 13:33 ` [patch] lockdep: add more rwsem.h documentation Ingo Molnar
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=20060704132135.GA7816@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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