From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S964925AbbHDNDB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:03:01 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37383 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S964884AbbHDNC6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:02:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:00:53 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: qrwlock && read-after-read
Message-ID: <20150804130053.GA22608@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

I am working on the (off-topic) bug report which motivated me to
look at locking/qrwlock.c and it seems to me there is a problem
with the queued rwlocks.

Unless I am totally confused read-after-read is no longer valid,
write_lock() stops the new readers. And lockdep doesn't know this,
read_lock()->rwlock_acquire_read() doesn't match the reality. The
code doing

	read_lock(X);
	read_lock(X);

can deadlock if another CPU does write_lock(X) in between. This
was fine before rwlock_t was changed to use qrwlock.

A nested read_lock() in interrupt should be fine though, and this
is because queue_read_lock_slowpath() "ignores" _QW_WAITING if
in_interrupt().

This means that rwlock_t has the really strange semantics imho,
and again, it is not lockdep-friendly.

What do you think we can/should do? Or did I misread this code?

Oleg.