[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150307171347.GA30365@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 18:13:47 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
hpa@...or.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jason.low2@...com, walken@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, davej@...emonkey.org.uk,
ming.lei@...onical.com, peterz@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix lock optimistic spinning
when owner is not running
I think the patch is fine, but this reminds me...
On 03/07, tip-bot for Jason Low wrote:
>
> bool rwsem_spin_on_owner(struct rw_semaphore *sem, struct task_struct *owner)
> {
> long count;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> - while (owner_running(sem, owner)) {
> - /* abort spinning when need_resched */
> - if (need_resched()) {
> + while (sem->owner == owner) {
> + /*
> + * Ensure we emit the owner->on_cpu, dereference _after_
> + * checking sem->owner still matches owner, if that fails,
> + * owner might point to free()d memory, if it still matches,
> + * the rcu_read_lock() ensures the memory stays valid.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, this is another case when we wrongly assume this.
Peter, should I resend
[PATCH 3/3] introduce task_rcu_dereference()
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141443631413914
? or should we add another call_rcu() in finish_task_switch() (like -rt does)
to make this true?
Oleg.
--
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