linux-kernel - Re: PREEMPT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 17:01:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc:	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs bcache

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:43:26AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > I seem to recall from looking at the logs that you just removed them
> > because all the old users could be and were converted to something
> > saner, for what they were doing (using them as completions, I want to
> > say?)
> 
> We explicitly converted them away so that we could kill it.  This was
> a joint project with Thomas.
> 
> > Bcache isn't using the rw sem as a completion though, it really is a
> > read/write lock that protects a specific data structure, and  where
> > we're taking a read lock for the duration of write IOs - and since bios
> > are asynchronous, that's why we need the non_owner() bit.
> 
> Part of this commit was to make the rw_semaphore behaviour similar to
> plain mutex, that is making sure there is exactly one owner and not
> different processes locking/unlocking it.  This is useful for PI (that's
> why the rt folks care), lock debugging and kinds of other use cases.

Right. We had to implement an anon_rw_semaphore version, which caused
more headache than it was worth the trouble.

The solution for one of the non owner use cases was something like the
below:

      read_lock(x->lock);
      atomic_inc(x->io_active);
      launch_io();
      read_unlock(x->lock);

On the writer side:

      write_lock(x->lock);
      while (atomic_read(x->io_active) {
      	    write_unlock(x->lock);
      	    wait_event(x->wait_for_io, !atomic_read(x->io_active));
	    write_lock(x->io_active);
      }
      ....

On the io side:

       complete_io()
         if (atomic_dec_and_test(x->io_active) &&
             waitqueue_active(x->wait_for_io))
                wake_up(x->wait_for_io);


That would fit into the bcache use case afacit.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/