[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060824125813.GE25452@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:28:14 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] (Refcount + Waitqueue) implementation for cpu_hotplug "locking"
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.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists