[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140320221913.104b275d@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 22:19:13 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, uobergfe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cifs: Fix possible deadlock with cifs and work
queues
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:53:46 -0400
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> Wait...why does the work running on CPU1 end up blocked on down_read()?
> Is it really getting stuck on the down_write you mention?
>
rwsems are fair locks. Readers will not block on a reader lock unless
there's a writer waiting. That's the key. As soon as a writer blocks on
a lock that is held by a reader (or multiple readers), new readers
coming in will also block to let the writer get a chance. Otherwise, it
is a unfair lock and the readers can starve the writer.
But people tend to forget that a waiting writer causes readers to block
on each other, and if the reader locks can deadlock each other, they
will deadlock with a writer waiting.
-- 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