[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4d823d09-b41c-2f86-40b7-f110bf30afd8@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 13:52:06 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/rwsem: Add a new RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY_OWNED
flag
On 05/15/2018 01:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:38:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> index 30465a2..b7208e1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
>> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ void up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>> {
>> rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
>> - DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != current);
>> + DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON((sem->owner != current) &&
>> + !rwsem_has_anonymous_owner(sem->owner));
> Why? Don't we always do percpu_rwsem_acquire() before up?
>
This is to allow an unlock to happen in the unknown owner state. Yes, it
is not necessary to fix the percpu-rwsem problem. It is there just in
case a rwsem will be released in that state in the future.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists