public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rwlock_t unfairness and tasklist_lock
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:49:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130109174922.GA31211@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANN689HRmVTLCjNL9c=JqhWy5F5vwr=A7coo3TVKLZGSVUpQjw@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/08, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> Like others before me, I have discovered how easy it is to DOS a
> system by abusing the rwlock_t unfairness and causing the
> tasklist_lock read side to be continuously held

Yes. Plus it has perfomance problems.

It should die. We still need the global lock to protect, say,
init_task.tasks list, but otherwise we need the per-process locking.

> - Would there be any fundamental objection to implementing a fair
> rwlock_t and dealing with the reentrancy issues in tasklist_lock ? My
> proposal there would be along the lines of:

I don't really understand your proposal in details, but until we kill
tasklist_lock, perhaps it makes sense to implement something simple, say,
write-biased rwlock and add "int task_struct->tasklist_read_lock_counter"
to avoid the read-write-read deadlock.

Oleg.


  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-09 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-09  4:03 rwlock_t unfairness and tasklist_lock Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-09 17:49 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-01-09 23:20   ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-12 17:31     ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-25  0:33       ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-11 14:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-01-12  3:33   ` [PATCH] " Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-12 17:46     ` Oleg Nesterov

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=20130109174922.GA31211@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sqazi@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=walken@google.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