[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100702150844.DA44.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:18:05 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: A possible sys_wait* bug
> On 07/01, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >
> > > Basically, it is possibly for readers to continuously hold
> > > tasklist_lock
>
> Yes, this is the known problem.
>
> Perhaps do_wait() is not the worst example. sys_kill(-1),
> sys_ioprio_set() scan the global list.
Ah, I see.
Yup, Roland also pointed out this is NOT biggest risk, there are much
other way. My thinking coverage was too narrow. sorry.
> > > I think the most direct approach to the problem is to have the
> > > readers-writer locks be writer biased (i.e. as soon as a writer
> > > contends, we do not permit any new readers).
>
> I thought about this too, but this is deadlockable. At least,
> read_lock(tasklist) should nest, and it should work in irq context.
>
> We need the more fine-grained locking, but it is not clear to me what
> should be done in the long term. Afaics, this is very nontrivial.
Thank you for kindful explanation.
--
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