From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>,
Ben Woodard <bwoodard@llnl.gov>, Stable Team <stable@kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bug
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:34:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9705.1254400470@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090930032138.3919.72085.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain>
Amerigo Wang <amwang@redhat.com> wrote:
> rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
> keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
> breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
> this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
> rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
NAK.
This does not fix the case where the active readers run out, but there's a
writer on the queue (see __up_read()), nor the case where the active writer
ends, but there's a waiter on the queue (see __up_write()). In both cases,
the lock is still held, though sem->activity is 0.
I'm leary of endorsing the presence of rwsem_is_locked() since, unless the
function calling it knows that the process it is running in has the rwsem
locked, the value is obsolete the moment the test has been performed.
The other problem with this change is that it has the potential to cause more
cacheline ping-pong under contention. That said, contention on an rwsem is
much less likely, I think, than on, say, a spinlock, so this change shouldn't
cause a significant slowdown.
Your patch would probably be better as:
- woken = 0;
+ woken = ++sem->activity;
while (waiter->flags & RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ) {
struct list_head *next = waiter->list.next;
list_del(&waiter->list);
tsk = waiter->task;
smp_mb();
waiter->task = NULL;
wake_up_process(tsk);
put_task_struct(tsk);
woken++;
if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
break;
waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list);
}
- sem->activity += woken;
+ sem->activity = woken;
However, as I said above, that is not sufficient. You really do need to put
spinlocks in rwsem_is_locked():
static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
unsigned long flags;
__s32 activity;
spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
activity = sem->activity;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
return activity != 0;
}
You also need to check over lib/rwsem.c. rwsem_is_locked() is unreliable for
that algorithm.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-01 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-30 3:19 [Patch] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bug Amerigo Wang
2009-09-30 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
2009-10-05 3:23 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-01 12:34 ` David Howells [this message]
2009-10-05 3:26 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-05 6:30 ` Amerigo Wang
2009-10-05 12:58 ` David Howells
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=9705.1254400470@redhat.com \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amwang@redhat.com \
--cc=behlendorf1@llnl.gov \
--cc=bwoodard@llnl.gov \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@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