[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180404153534.GI4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:35:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Give priority to readers with irqs
disabled to prevent deadlock
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:24:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> The following situation leads to deadlock:
>
> [task 1] [task 2] [task 3]
> kill_fasync() mm_update_next_owner() copy_process()
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) read_lock(&tasklist_lock) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> send_sigio() <IRQ> ...
> read_lock(&fown->lock) kill_fasync() ...
> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) ...
>
> Task 1 can't acquire read locked tasklist_lock, since there is
> already task 3 expressed its wish to take the lock exclusive.
> Task 2 holds the read locked lock, but it can't take the spin lock.
>
> The patch makes queued_read_lock_slowpath() to give task 1 the same
> priority as it was an interrupt handler, and to take the lock
That re-introduces starvation scenarios. And the above looks like a
proper deadlock that should be sorted by fixing the locking order.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists