From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>, Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>,
Stable Team <stable@kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: [Patch v2] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 02:36:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091005063919.3958.65581.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
Quote from Andrew:
"
- we have one or more processes sleeping in down_read(), waiting for access.
- we wake one or more processes up without altering ->activity
- they start to run and they do rwsem_is_locked(). This incorrectly
returns "false", because the waker process is still crunching away in
__rwsem_do_wake().
- the waker now alters ->activity, but it was too late.
And the patch fixes this by updating ->activity prior to waking the
sleeping processes. So when they run, they'll see a non-zero value of
->activity.
"
Also, we have more problems, as pointed by David:
"... the case where the active readers run out, but there's a
writer on the queue (see __up_read()), nor the case where the active writer
ends, but there's a waiter on the queue (see __up_write()). In both cases,
the lock is still held, though sem->activity is 0."
This patch fixes this too.
David also said we may have "the potential to cause more cacheline ping-pong
under contention", but "this change shouldn't cause a significant slowdown."
With this patch applied, I can't trigger that bug any more.
Reported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com>
Cc: Stable Team <stable@kernel.org>
---
diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
index 6c3c0f6..1395bb6 100644
--- a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ extern void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
- return (sem->activity != 0);
+ return !(sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list));
}
#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
index 9df3ca5..44e4484 100644
--- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
+++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
@@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
{
struct rwsem_waiter *waiter;
struct task_struct *tsk;
- int woken;
waiter = list_entry(sem->wait_list.next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
@@ -78,24 +77,21 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
/* grant an infinite number of read locks to the front of the queue */
dont_wake_writers:
- woken = 0;
while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
+ sem->activity++;
list_del(&waiter->list);
tsk = waiter->task;
smp_mb();
waiter->task = NULL;
wake_up_process(tsk);
put_task_struct(tsk);
- woken++;
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
break;
waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
}
- sem->activity += woken;
-
out:
return sem;
}
next reply other threads:[~2009-10-05 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-05 6:36 Amerigo Wang [this message]
2009-10-05 13:13 ` [Patch v2] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs David Howells
2009-10-06 7:02 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-06 7:18 ` David Howells
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=20091005063919.3958.65581.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain \
--to=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=behlendorf1@llnl.gov \
--cc=bwoodard@llnl.gov \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).