Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1260499 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-02 10:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 11:10 +0100 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
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: [PATCH v1 05/20] ARC: rwlock: disable interrupts in !LLSC variant Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-11-02 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] ARC: rwlock: disable interrupts in !LLSC variant Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-11-02 11:10 +0100
| From | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 05/20] ARC: rwlock: disable interrupts in !LLSC variant |
| Message-ID | <qqjUt-3G6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Saturday 31 October 2015 06:45 PM, Noam Camus wrote:
> From: Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>
>
> If we hold rw->lock_mutex and interrupt occures we may
> end up spinning on it for ever during softirq.
>
> Below you may see an example for interrupt we get while
> nl_table_lock is holding its rw->lock_mutex and we spinned
> on it for ever.
>
> The concept for the fix was taken from SPARC.
>
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] Stack Trace:
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] arc_unwind_core+0xb8/0x11c
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] dump_stack+0x68/0xac
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] _raw_read_lock+0xa8/0xac
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] netlink_broadcast_filtered+0x56/0x35c
> [2015-05-12 19:16:12] nlmsg_notify+0x42/0xa4
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] neigh_update+0x1fe/0x44c
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] neigh_event_ns+0x40/0xa4
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] arp_process+0x46e/0x5a8
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] __netif_receive_skb_core+0x358/0x500
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] process_backlog+0x92/0x154
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] net_rx_action+0xb8/0x188
> [2015-05-12 19:16:13] __do_softirq+0xda/0x1d8
> [2015-05-12 19:16:14] irq_exit+0x8a/0x8c
> [2015-05-12 19:16:14] arch_do_IRQ+0x6c/0xa8
> [2015-05-12 19:16:14] handle_interrupt_level1+0xe4/0xf0
>
> Signed-off-by: Noam Camus <noamc@ezchip.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> arch/arc/include/asm/spinlock.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arc/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/arc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> index db8c59d..800e7c4 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> +++ b/arch/arc/include/asm/spinlock.h
> @@ -610,7 +610,9 @@ static inline void arch_spin_unlock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> static inline int arch_read_trylock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
>
> /*
> @@ -623,6 +625,7 @@ static inline int arch_read_trylock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> }
>
> arch_spin_unlock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> smp_mb();
> return ret;
> @@ -632,7 +635,9 @@ static inline int arch_read_trylock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> static inline int arch_write_trylock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
>
> /*
> @@ -646,6 +651,7 @@ static inline int arch_write_trylock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> ret = 1;
> }
> arch_spin_unlock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -664,16 +670,24 @@ static inline void arch_write_lock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
>
> static inline void arch_read_unlock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> {
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
Isn't raw_spin_lock_irqsave() equivalent and more concise ?
> rw->counter++;
> arch_spin_unlock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> static inline void arch_write_unlock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> {
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> rw->counter = __ARCH_RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED__;
> arch_spin_unlock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> #endif
>
--
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/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqkdQ-42a-35@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1260499 |
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 03:12:49PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > @@ -664,16 +670,24 @@ static inline void arch_write_lock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> >
> > static inline void arch_read_unlock(arch_rwlock_t *rw)
> > {
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(flags);
> > arch_spin_lock(&(rw->lock_mutex));
>
>
> Isn't raw_spin_lock_irqsave() equivalent and more concise ?
You might run into header file recursion issues; also raw_spinlock has
lockdep annotations added, whereas the above does not.
--
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web