linux-kernel - Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch

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]

Message-ID: <1271839772.1776.58.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:49:32 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Primiano Tucci <p.tucci@...il.com>
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 07:16 +0200, Primiano Tucci wrote:
> Hi steve
> > read_locks are converted into "special" rt_mutexes. The only thing
> > special about them, is the owner may grab the same read lock more than
> > once (recursive).
> >
> > If a lower priority process currently holds the tasklist_lock for write,
> > when a high priority process tries to take it for read (or write for
> > that matter) it will block on the lower priority process. But that lower
> > priority process will acquire the priority of the higher priority
> > process (priority inheritance) and will run at that priority until it
> > releases the lock. Then it will go back to its low priority and the
> > higher priority process will then preempt it and acquire the lock for
> > read.
> 
> In your example you implied that the low priority process, holding the
> lock for write, runs on the same CPU of the higher priority process
> that wants to lock it for read. This is clear to me.
> My problem is, in a SMP environment, what happens if a process (let's
> say T1 on CPU #1) holds the lock for write (its priority does not
> matter, it is not a PI problem) and now a process T0 on cpu #0 wants
> to lock it for read?
> The process T0 will be blocked! But who will run now on CPU 0, until
> the rwlock is held by T1? Probably the next ready process on CPU #'0.
> Is it right?

Yes. This is the reality of SMP systems, nothing much you can do about
that. System resources are shared between all cpus, irrespective of task
affinities.

--
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/