linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/46] rcu-walk and dcache scaling

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: <AANLkTim=aqwYsyR9fb=DTj2BNA5BmwsXRAPz-+OvUZPV@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 2010 02:59:12 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/46] rcu-walk and dcache scaling

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 02:24 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>
>>  repeat:
>>     spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
>>     spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
>>     /* do stuff */
>>     spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
>>     spin_release(&dentry->d_lock.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>>     parent = dentry;
>>     spin_acquire(&this_parent->d_lock.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
>>     goto repeat;
>
> shouldn't that be s/this_parent/parent/ ?

Yes, typo in my pseudo code.


> So what you're trying to do is:
>
>  A -> B -> C -> ...
>
> lock A
> lock B, nested
> unlock A
> flip B from nested to top
> lock C, nested
> unlock B
> flip C from nested to top
> lock ...
>
> Anyway, the way to write that is something like:
>
>  lock_set_subclass(&detry->d_lock.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_);
>
> Which will reset the subclass of the held lock from DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED
> to 0.

OK, thanks. My version should not have caused any problems though,
right? Any idea what might have caused Dave's crash?


> This is also used in double_unlock_balance(), we go into
> double_lock_balance() with this_rq locked and want to lock busiest,
> because of the lock ordering we might need to unlock this_rq and lock
> busiest first, at which point this_rq is nested.
>
> On unlock we thus need to map this_rq back to subclass 0 (which it had
> before double_lock_balance(), because otherwise subsequent lock
> operations will be done against the subclass and confuse things.

Thanks,
Nick
--
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/