On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 06:28:14PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:25:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > no. The writer first sets the global write_active flag, and _then_ goes
> > on to wait for all readers (if any) to get out of their critical
> > sections. (That's the purpose of the per-cpu waitqueue that readers use
> > to wake up a writer waiting for the refcount to go to 0.)
> >
> > can you still see problems with this scheme?
>
> This can cause a deadlock sometimes, when a thread tries to take the
> read_lock() recursively, with a writer having come in between the two
> recursive reads:
>
> Reader1 on CPU0 Writer1 on CPU1
>
> read_lock() - success
>
> write_lock() - blocks on Reader1
> (writer_active = 1)
>
>
> read_lock() - blocks on Writer1
>
> The only way to avoid this deadlock is to either keep track of
> cpu_hp_lock_count per-task (like the preemption count kept per-task)
> or allow read_lock() to succeed if reader_count > 1 (even if
> writer_active = 1). The later makes the lock unduely biased towards
> readers.
The reason why recursive read side locking works in the patches I posted, is
the fact that the _locking_is_unfair_. Which means even when a writer is
waiting, if there are readers in the system,a new reader will go ahead.
I can try incorporating this unfair model to Ingo's suggestion
as follows:
- A writer on arrival sets the global flag to writer_waiting.
- A reader on cpuX checks if global flag = writer_waiting. If yes,
and percpu(refcount) == 0, the reader blocks. if percpu(refcount)!=0,
the reader increments it and goes ahead,because there are readers
in the system.
This should work, if not for task migration. It may so happen that
a task has already taken a read lock on cpuX, gets migrated to cpuY
where percpu(refcount) = 0. Now a writer arrives, sets the global flag.
The reader tries taking a recursive read lock gets blocked since
percpu(refcount) on cpuY is 0.
Ingo, I am wondering if lockdep would be of some help here.
Since lockdep already checks for recursive reads, can I use it in
the above case and allow the new reader only if it is recursive?
I don't like the idea of explicitly checking for recursiveness
in the locking schema. Just that I can't think of a better way now.
Thanks and Regards
ego
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
