Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1199846

Re: qrwlock && read-after-read

From Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: qrwlock && read-after-read
Date 2015-08-04 15:50 +0200
Message-ID <pTKLp-3IO-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <pTK8F-2Zr-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pTKim-3aR-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:00:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 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 Unless I am totally confused read-after-read is no longer valid,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?
>
> Fix lockdep, although that's non trivial from what I remember.
>
> These (new) semantics were very much on purpose and suggested by Linus
> IIRC.

Hmm, OK.

Lets fix the lockdep annotaions?

Oleg.

--- x/include/linux/rwlock_api_smp.h
+++ x/include/linux/rwlock_api_smp.h
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static inline int __raw_write_trylock(rw
 static inline void __raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock)
 {
 	preempt_disable();
-	rwlock_acquire_read(&lock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
+	lock_acquire(..., /* read */ in_interrupt() 2 : 1, ...);
 	LOCK_CONTENDED(lock, do_raw_read_trylock, do_raw_read_lock);
 }
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

qrwlock && read-after-read Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-04 15:10 +0200
  Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-04 15:20 +0200
    Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-04 15:50 +0200
      Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-08-04 19:40 +0200
    Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-08-04 16:00 +0200
      Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-05 15:20 +0200

csiph-web