[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502114258.GB7323@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 13:42:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, jack@...e.com,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RT WARNING] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) !=
current) with fsfreeze (4.19.25-rt16)
On 05/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But this all is cosmetic, it seems that we can remove ->rw_sem altogether
> but I am not sure...
I mean, afaics percpu_down_read() can just do
wait_event(readers_block == 0);
in the slow path, while percpu_down_write()
wait_even_exclusive(xchg(readers_block, 1) == 0);
we do not really need ->rw_sem if we rely on wait_queue_head.
But in fact, either way it seems that we going to implement another simple
"non owner" read/write lock, so perhaps we should do this explicitly?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists