[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1331038048.25686.368.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:47:28 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Carsten Emde <cbe@...dl.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] seqlock/rt: Prevent livelocks with seqlocks in RT
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 09:18 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Because read_seqlocks are used in the VDSO area, a raw_read_seqcount_begin()
> > was created to allow userspace tasks to access read_seqcount().
> > As the grabbing of the write_lock() is not allowed in VDSO, nor
> > is even referencing it.
>
> This is completely bogus. The VDSO update write side runs with
> interrupts disabled, so it cannot be preempted at all.
>
> > Note, a live lock can still happen if the userspace task that
> > does the read_seqlock is of higher priority than a user doing
> > the write_lock, so userspace needs to be careful.
>
> What the hell are you smoking?
Cherries.
I forgot I still had that in my changelog. I wrote this code before I
had your changes. I noticed later that the vdso seqlocks were raw
spinlocks and shouldn't be an issue. As you told me that you had this
fixed, I never bothered to change the log.
Then last night when I hit this bug, I simply cherry picked this fixed
and posted it.
-- Steve
--
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