[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150409201405.GU21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 22:14:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qrwlock: Fix bug in interrupt handling code
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:07:55PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> The qrwlock is fair in the process context, but becoming unfair when
> in the interrupt context to support use cases like the tasklist_lock.
> However, the unfair code in the interrupt context has problem that
> may cause deadlock.
>
> The fast path increments the reader count. In the interrupt context,
> the reader in the slowpath will wait until the writer release the
> lock. However, if other readers have the lock and the writer is just
> in the waiting mode. It will never get the write lock because the
> that interrupt context reader has increment the count. This will
> cause deadlock.
>
> This patch fixes this problem by checking the state of the
> reader/writer count retrieved at the fast path. If the writer
> is in waiting mode, the reader will get the lock immediately and
> return. Otherwise, it will wait until the writer release the lock
> like before.
A little word on how you found this issue would be nice.
I'll have a look at the actual patch tomorrow, my brain is properly
fried (as demonstrated by my last email to you ;-).
--
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