linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch/tile: fix rwlock so would-be write lockers don't block new readers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTim1YyujwGZfenU_m52HEJJSFmTg3Wswn2DkqA3a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:36:31 +0800
From:	Cypher Wu <cypher.w@...il.com>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/tile: fix rwlock so would-be write lockers don't
 block new readers

2010/11/22 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>:
> On 11/22/2010 12:39 AM, Cypher Wu wrote:
>> 2010/11/15 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>:
>>> This avoids a deadlock in the IGMP code where one core gets a read
>>> lock, another core starts trying to get a write lock (thus blocking
>>> new readers), and then the first core tries to recursively re-acquire
>>> the read lock.
>>>
>>> We still try to preserve some degree of balance by giving priority
>>> to additional write lockers that come along while the lock is held
>>> for write, so they can all complete quickly and return the lock to
>>> the readers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
>>> ---
>>> This should apply relatively cleanly to 2.6.26.7 source code too.
>>> [...]
>>
>> I've finished my business trip and tested that patch for more than an
>> hour and it works. The test is still running now.
>>
>> But it seems there still has a potential problem: we used ticket lock
>> for write_lock(), and if there are so many write_lock() occurred, is
>> 256 ticket enough for 64 or even more cores to avoiding overflow?
>> Since is we try to write_unlock() and there's already write_lock()
>> waiting we'll only adding current ticket.
>
> This is OK, since each core can issue at most one (blocking) write_lock(),
> and we have only 64 cores.  Future >256 core machines will be based on
> TILE-Gx anyway, which doesn't have the 256-core limit since it doesn't use
> the spinlock_32.c implementation.
>
> --
> Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
> http://www.tilera.com
>
>

Say, if core A try to write_lock() rwlock and current_ticket_ is 0 and
it write next_ticket_ to 1, when it processing the lock, core B try to
write_lock() again and write next_ticket_ to 2, then when A
write_unlock() it seen that (current_ticket_+1) is not equal to
next_ticket_, so it increment current_ticket_, and core B get the
lock. If core A try write_lock again before core B write_unlock, it
will increment next_ticket_ to 3. And so on.
This may rarely happened, I've tested it yesterday for several hours
it goes very well under pressure.


-- 
Cyberman Wu
http://www.meganovo.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/