[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19121.1254998734@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:45:34 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs
Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> rwsem_is_locked() tests ->activity without locks, so we should always
> keep ->activity consistent. However, the code in __rwsem_do_wake()
> breaks this rule, it updates ->activity after _all_ readers waken up,
> this may give some reader a wrong ->activity value, thus cause
> rwsem_is_locked() behaves wrong.
>
> Quote from Andrew:
>
> "
> - we have one or more processes sleeping in down_read(), waiting for access.
>
> - we wake one or more processes up without altering ->activity
>
> - they start to run and they do rwsem_is_locked(). This incorrectly
> returns "false", because the waker process is still crunching away in
> __rwsem_do_wake().
>
> - the waker now alters ->activity, but it was too late.
> "
>
> So we need get a spinlock to protect this. And rwsem_is_locked()
> should not block, thus we use spin_trylock.
>
> Reported-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@...l.gov>
> Cc: Ben Woodard <bwoodard@...l.gov>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
I'd say the comment in __rwsem_do_wake() is unnecessary, but other than
that...
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
--
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