[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:51:08 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 04.04.2018 18:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
We can move tasklist_lock out of send_sigio(), but I'm not sure
it's possible for read_lock(&fown->lock).
Is there another solution? Is there reliable way to iterate do_each_pid_task()
with rcu_read_lock()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists