[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <30708.1360586491@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:41:31 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.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, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writer lock backend
Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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);
The lock order on CPU 0 is unsafe if CPU2 can do:
write_lock(&my_rwlock);
spin_lock(&random_lock);
and on CPU 1 if CPU2 can do:
spin_lock(&random_lock);
write_lock(&my_rwlock);
I presume you were specifically excluding these situations?
David
--
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