linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writer lock backend

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: <CANN689HOmiO-5714UiyuOcjrRYW2DkR4cPLgt96f5YeB9Ws3RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:14:56 -0800
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, tj@...nel.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
	wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rjw@...k.pl, sbw@....edu, fweisbec@...il.com,
	linux@....linux.org.uk, nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global
 reader-writer lock backend

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 13:03 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> A straight-forward (and obvious) algorithm to implement Per-CPU Reader-Writer
>> locks can also lead to too many deadlock possibilities which can make it very
>> hard/impossible to use. This is explained in the example below, which helps
>> justify the need for a different algorithm to implement flexible Per-CPU
>> Reader-Writer locks.
>>
>> We can use global rwlocks as shown below safely, without fear of deadlocks:
>>
>> Readers:
>>
>>          CPU 0                                CPU 1
>>          ------                               ------
>>
>> 1.    spin_lock(&random_lock);             read_lock(&my_rwlock);
>>
>>
>> 2.    read_lock(&my_rwlock);               spin_lock(&random_lock);
>>
>>
>> Writer:
>>
>>          CPU 2:
>>          ------
>>
>>        write_lock(&my_rwlock);
>>
>
> I thought global locks are now fair. That is, a reader will block if a
> writer is waiting. Hence, the above should deadlock on the current
> rwlock_t types.

I believe you are mistaken here. struct rw_semaphore is fair (and
blocking), but rwlock_t is unfair. The reason we can't easily make
rwlock_t fair is because tasklist_lock currently depends on the
rwlock_t unfairness - tasklist_lock readers typically don't disable
local interrupts, and tasklist_lock may be acquired again from within
an interrupt, which would deadlock if rwlock_t was fair and a writer
was queued by the time the interrupt is processed.

> We need to fix those locations (or better yet, remove all rwlocks ;-)

tasklist_lock is the main remaining user. I'm not sure about removing
rwlock_t, but I would like to at least make it fair somehow :)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/