public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:23 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ACDADAB.3030403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13922.1254917951@redhat.com>

David Howells wrote:
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>>  static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>>  {
>> -	return (sem->activity != 0);
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
>> +		ret = !(list_empty(&sem->wait_list) && sem->activity == 0);
>> +		spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>> +	return 1;
>>  }
> 
> Yep...  This seems a reasonable approach, though I contend that if you're
> holding the spinlock, then sem->wait_list _must_ be empty if sem->activity is
> 0 - so that half of the test is redundant.
> 
> sem->activity == 0 and sem->wait_list not being empty is a transitional state
> that can only occur in ups and downgrades whilst they hold the spinlock.
> 


Hmm, yeah...

>> diff --git a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> index 9df3ca5..234d83f 100644
>> --- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> +++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
>> @@ -78,7 +78,12 @@ __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;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * we increase ->activity just to make rwsem_is_locked() happy,
>> +	 * to avoid potential cache line ping-pong, we don't do this
>> +	 * within the following loop.
>> +	 */
>> +	woken = sem->activity++;
>>  	while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
>>  		struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
>>  
>> @@ -94,7 +99,7 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>>  		waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	sem->activity += woken;
>> +	sem->activity = woken;
>>  
>>   out:
>>  	return sem;
> 
> This change to __rwsem_do_wake() is all unnecessary - you're defending against
> the test of sem->activity by rwsem_is_locked() - but that now happens with the
> spinlock held.

Ah, yes, I knew this, I kept this just for completeness.
I will remove this part then. :)

THanks!


      reply	other threads:[~2009-10-08  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-06  6:55 [Patch v3] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs Amerigo Wang
2009-10-07  9:41 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-07 12:19 ` David Howells
2009-10-08  9:15   ` Amerigo Wang [this message]

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=4ACDADAB.3030403@redhat.com \
    --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 \
    /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