[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACuPKxnSKQuyWWCtjmmNWP0apja28jWpdYWaKWouArsQA02axQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:54:07 +0800
From: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...pee.com>
To: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/rwsem: Remove unnessary check in rwsem_down_read_slowpath()
On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 11:17 AM Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com> wrote:
>
> reader writer reader
>
> acquire
> release
> rwsem_write_trylock
> set RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED
> rwsem_down_read_slowpath
> set owner
>
> If prev lock holder is a reader, when it releases the lock, the owner isn't cleared(CONFIG_DEBUG_RWSEMS isn't enabled).
> A writer comes and can set the RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED bit succsessfully, then a new reader run into slow path, before
> the writer set the owner, the new reader will see that both the RWSEM_READER_OWNED bit and RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED bit are
> set.
>
For the above example, it won't cause a problem. When the writer
successfully sets RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED, the reader, when reading rcnt
through rwsem_down_read_slowpath(), will see that rcnt is 0 and will
jump to the queue label.
Thanks,
Tang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists