[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8lGxkBrls6qQOdM@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 13:33:58 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: boqun.feng@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
duyuyang@...il.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org,
tytso@....edu, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jack@...e.cz, jlayton@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com,
melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, chris.p.wilson@...el.com,
gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com, max.byungchul.park@...il.com,
longman@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 00/23] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:23:08PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> Boqun wrote:
> > * Looks like the DEPT dependency graph doesn't handle the
> > fair/unfair readers as lockdep current does. Which bring the
> > next question.
>
> No. DEPT works better for unfair read. It works based on wait/event. So
> read_lock() is considered a potential wait waiting on write_unlock()
> while write_lock() is considered a potential wait waiting on either
> write_unlock() or read_unlock(). DEPT is working perfect for it.
>
> For fair read (maybe you meant queued read lock), I think the case
> should be handled in the same way as normal lock. I might get it wrong.
> Please let me know if I miss something.
>From the lockdep/DEPT point of view, the question is whether:
read_lock(A)
read_lock(A)
can deadlock if a writer comes in between the two acquisitions and
sleeps waiting on A to be released. A fair lock will block new
readers when a writer is waiting, while an unfair lock will allow
new readers even while a writer is waiting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists