[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1220095043.8426.16.camel@twins>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:17:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
gregory.haskins@...il.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [RT PATCH v2] seqlock: serialize against writers
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 14:03 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> *Patch submitted for inclusion in PREEMPT_RT 26-rt4. Applies to 2.6.26.3-rt3*
>
> Hi Ingo, Steven, Thomas,
> Please consider for -rt4. This fixes a nasty deadlock on my systems under
> heavy load.
>
> [
> Changelog:
> v2: only touch seqlock_t because raw_seqlock_t doesn't require
> serialization and userspace cannot modify data during a read
>
> v1: initial release
> ]
>
> -Greg
>
> ----
> seqlock: serialize against writers
>
> Seqlocks have always advertised that readers do not "block", but this was
> never really true. Readers have always logically blocked at the head of
> the critical section under contention with writers, regardless of whether
> they were allowed to run code or not.
>
> Recent changes in this space (88a411c07b6fedcfc97b8dc51ae18540bd2beda0)
> have turned this into a more explicit blocking operation in mainline.
> However, this change highlights a short-coming in -rt because the
> normal seqlock_ts are preemptible. This means that we can potentially
> deadlock should a reader spin waiting for a write critical-section to end
> while the writer is preempted.
Ah, the point I was missing is higher-priority realtime task, in which
case the write side will never run because it wont preempt.
> This patch changes the internal implementation to use a rwlock and forces
> the readers to serialize with the writers under contention. This will
> have the advantage that -rt seqlocks_t will sleep the reader if deadlock
> were imminent, and it will pi-boost the writer to prevent inversion.
>
> This fixes a deadlock discovered under testing where all high prioritiy
> readers were hogging the cpus and preventing a writer from releasing the
> lock.
>
> Since seqlocks are designed to be used as rarely-write locks, this should
> not affect the performance in the fast-path
Still dont like this patch, once you have a rwlock you might as well go
all the way. Esp since this half-arsed construct defeats PI in certain
cases.
--
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