public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mingo@kernel.org>,
	<dipankar@in.ibm.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	<niv@us.ibm.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
	<rostedt@goodmis.org>, <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	<edumazet@google.com>, <dvhart@linux.intel.com>,
	<fweisbec@gmail.com>, <oleg@redhat.com>, <sbw@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu: Allow post-unlock reference for rt_mutex
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:50:09 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53BC9FD1.90604@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1404772701-8804-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On 07/08/2014 06:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The current approach to RCU priority boosting uses an rt_mutex strictly
> for its priority-boosting side effects.  The rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked()
> function is used by the booster to initialize the lock as held by the
> boostee.  The booster then uses rt_mutex_lock() to acquire this rt_mutex,
> which priority-boosts the boostee.  When the boostee reaches the end
> of its outermost RCU read-side critical section, it checks a field in
> its task structure to see whether it has been boosted, and, if so, uses
> rt_mutex_unlock() to release the rt_mutex.  The booster can then go on
> to boost the next task that is blocking the current RCU grace period.
> 
> But reasonable implementations of rt_mutex_unlock() might result in the
> boostee referencing the rt_mutex's data after releasing it. 

XXXX_unlock(lock_ptr) should not reference to the lock_ptr after it has unlocked the lock. (*)
So I think this patch is unneeded. Although its adding overhead is at slow-patch,
but it adds REVIEW-burden.

And although the original rt_mutex_unlock() violates the rule(*) when the fast-cmpxchg-path,
but it is fixed now.

It is the lock-subsystem's responsible to do this. I prefer to add the wait_for_complete()
stuff until the future when the boostee needs to re-access the booster after rt_mutex_unlock()
instead of now.

Thanks,
Lai

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-09  1:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-07 22:37 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/17] rcu: Document deadlock-avoidance information for rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/17] rcu: Handle obsolete references to TINY_PREEMPT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] signal: Explain local_irq_save() call Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08  9:01     ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-08 15:50       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/17] rcu: Make rcu node arrays static const char * const Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/17] rcu: remove redundant ACCESS_ONCE() from tick_do_timer_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 14:46     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu: Eliminate read-modify-write ACCESS_ONCE() calls Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 16:59     ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 20:35       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 20:43         ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 21:40           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/17] rcu: Loosen __call_rcu()'s rcu_head alignment constraint Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu: Allow post-unlock reference for rt_mutex Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09  1:50     ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2014-07-09 16:04       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/17] rcu: Check both root and current rcu_node when setting up future grace period Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/17] rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 15:24     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 15:47       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 18:38         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 19:58           ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 20:40             ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 22:05               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 15:40                 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:10           ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:25             ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:45               ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 18:57                 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:08                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:26                     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:43                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:55                         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:05               ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 19:11                 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 20:35                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 20:45                     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-12  1:39                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-14 13:52                         ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 20:15                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-14 13:53                   ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:29             ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/17] rcu: Don't use NMIs to dump other CPUs' stacks Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/17] rcu: Use __this_cpu_read() instead of per_cpu_ptr() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/17] rcu: remove CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08  8:11     ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-08 13:56       ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/17] rcu: Fix __rcu_reclaim() to use true/false for bool Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_initiate_boost() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38   ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09  2:14 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Lai Jiangshan

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=53BC9FD1.90604@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sbw@mit.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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