linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:28:54 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	namhyung@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	sbw@....edu, tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: add read-preference local-global rwlock

Lai, I didn't read this discussion except the code posted by Michel.
I'll try to read this patch carefully later, but I'd like to ask
a couple of questions.

This version looks more complex than Michel's, why? Just curious, I
am trying to understand what I missed. See
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136196350213593

And I can't understand FALLBACK_BASE...

OK, suppose that CPU_0 does _write_unlock() and releases ->fallback_rwlock.

CPU_1 does _read_lock(), and ...

> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> +{
> +	struct lglock *lg = &lgrw->lglock;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	rwlock_acquire_read(&lg->lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> +	if (likely(!__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->reader_refcnt))) {
> +		if (!arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lg->lock))) {

_trylock() fails,

> +			read_lock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);
> +			__this_cpu_add(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);

so we take ->fallback_rwlock and ->reader_refcnt == FALLBACK_BASE.

CPU_0 does lg_global_unlock(lgrw->lglock) and finishes _write_unlock().

Interrupt handler on CPU_1 does _read_lock() notices ->reader_refcnt != 0
and simply does this_cpu_inc(), so reader_refcnt == FALLBACK_BASE + 1.

Then irq does _read_unlock(), and

> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_unlock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> +{
> +	switch (__this_cpu_dec_return(*lgrw->reader_refcnt)) {
> +	case 0:
> +		lg_local_unlock(&lgrw->lglock);
> +		return;
> +	case FALLBACK_BASE:
> +		__this_cpu_sub(*lgrw->reader_refcnt, FALLBACK_BASE);
> +		read_unlock(&lgrw->fallback_rwlock);

hits this case?

Doesn't look right, but most probably I missed something.

Oleg.

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