Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1200718 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-05 15:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-05 15:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: qrwlock && read-after-read Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-08-05 15:20 +0200
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-05 15:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: qrwlock && read-after-read |
| Message-ID | <pU6LU-2ne-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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. -- 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 top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web