[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141026074257.GC10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 08:42:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...driver.com>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: semantics of reader/writer semaphores in rt patch
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 12:21:31AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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?
There were patches by ego that fix lockdep's read side tracking. I need
to find a few spare days to look at those :/
--
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