[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410260019280.5308@nanos>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:21:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>
cc: rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Does the RT kernel just disallow this sort of algorithm?
>
> Yes. For a good reason. Let's add thread C
>
> A B C
> down_read(X)
> down_write(X)
> lock(Y)
> modify data
> unlock(Y)
> wake(B)
> down_read(X)
>
> Due to the mainline rwsem fairness semantics:
>
> A holds X, C is blocked on A and B is blocked on A.
>
> Deadlock, without RT and the single reader restriction being involved.
>
> So RT does not violate ANY of the existing mainline semantics, it just
> imposes a performance impact of not allowing multiple readers.
@peterz: It might be worthwhile to have a CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y dependent
mode which restricts concurrent readers to 1 in mainline to catch this
kind of stuff. Hmm?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists