linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

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: <87ip6gutsq.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:12:37 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.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,
	walken@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:00:04 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 01:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:03:52AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> CPU 0                          CPU 1
>>>
>>> read_lock(&rwlock)
>>>
>>>                               write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0
>>>                               //has acquired the lock for read
>>>
>>> read_lock(&rwlock)
>>>    ^^^^^
>>> What happens here? Does CPU 0 start spinning (and hence deadlock) or will
>>> it continue realizing that it already holds the rwlock for read?
>> 
>> I don't think rwlock allows nesting write lock inside read lock.
>> read_lock(); write_lock() will always deadlock.
>> 
>
> Sure, I understand that :-) My question was, what happens when *two* CPUs
> are involved, as in, the read_lock() is invoked only on CPU 0 whereas the
> write_lock() is invoked on CPU 1.
>
> For example, the same scenario shown above, but with slightly different
> timing, will NOT result in a deadlock:
>
> Scenario 2:
>   CPU 0                                CPU 1
>
> read_lock(&rwlock)
>
>
> read_lock(&rwlock) //doesn't spin
>
>                                     write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0
>                                     //has acquired the lock for read
>
>
> So I was wondering whether the "fairness" logic of rwlocks would cause
> the second read_lock() to spin (in the first scenario shown above) because
> a writer is already waiting (and hence new readers should spin) and thus
> cause a deadlock.

In my understanding, current x86 rwlock does basically this (of course,
in an atomic fashion):


#define RW_LOCK_BIAS 0x10000

rwlock_init(rwlock)
{
	rwlock->lock = RW_LOCK_BIAS;
}

arch_read_lock(rwlock)
{
retry:
	if (--rwlock->lock >= 0)
		return;

        rwlock->lock++;
        while (rwlock->lock < 1)
        	continue;

        goto retry;
}

arch_write_lock(rwlock)
{
retry:
	if ((rwlock->lock -= RW_LOCK_BIAS) == 0)
        	return;

        rwlock->lock += RW_LOCK_BIAS;
	while (rwlock->lock != RW_LOCK_BIAS)
		continue;

        goto retry;
}


So I can't find where the 'fairness' logic comes from..

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/