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 S1752368AbbHENKb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:10:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41981 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752118AbbHENK3 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 Aug 2015 09:10:29 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 15:08:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qrwlock && read-after-read
Message-ID: <20150805130823.GA18587@redhat.com>
References: <20150804130053.GA22608@redhat.com> <20150804131036.GQ25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CA+55aFx-mQeayVa-Cq=GYNgPQRrct-B7HrrazhdCB7KebgD=aw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx-mQeayVa-Cq=GYNgPQRrct-B7HrrazhdCB7KebgD=aw@mail.gmail.com>
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

On 08/04, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I refused to have something that broke the tasklist lock, so the "irq
> users nest" was a requirement.

And I was going to reply that this breaks tasklist lock anyway but
failed to find anything wrong after the quick grep.

> So it's not like I love the current semantics, but at least they are
> realistic and can work. I agree that teaching lockdep to check for
> this would be a good idea, because the semantics _are_ subtle.

Yes... Just for example, the comment above task_lock(),

	Nests both inside and outside of read_lock(&tasklist_lock).

is no longer correct. Fortunately task_lock() is not irq-safe, and
iirc nobody does task_lock() + read_lock(&tasklist_lock) in process
context, so we are probably fine. Still, qrwlock changed the rules
and now it can only nest inside of read_lock(tasklist_lock).

Hmm. And afaics this in turn means that the next sentence

	It must not be nested with write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock),
	neither inside nor outside.

also becomes wrong. So task_lock() can nest inside tasklist_lock,
write-or-read doesn't matter.


So it would be really nice to fix lockdep, but as Peter explains
(thanks Peter!) this is not simple.


> (And I'm not 100% convinced we needed the fair model at all, but
> fairness does end up being a good thing _if_ it works).

Yes. At least this automatically fixes the easy-to-trigger problems
with write_lock(tasklist) starvation/lockup.

Oleg.