[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc934b85-9371-4758-b595-814b98f9c595@shopee.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 18:29:36 +0800
From: Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@...pee.com>
To: Tang Yizhou <yizhou.tang@...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 2023/11/10 14:54, Tang Yizhou wrote:
> 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
Yes, so if rcnt > 1, the RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED bit couldn't be set?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists