[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXnaNSrtaWbS2ivU@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:22:13 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, kernel@...cinc.com,
quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com, keescook@...omium.or,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org, paul@...l-moore.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: Introduce a write lock/unlock wrapper for
tasklist_lock
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 06:17:45PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> +static inline void write_lock_tasklist_lock(void)
> +{
> + while (1) {
> + local_irq_disable();
> + if (write_trylock(&tasklist_lock))
> + break;
> + local_irq_enable();
> + cpu_relax();
This is a bad implementation though. You don't set the _QW_WAITING flag
so readers don't know that there's a pending writer. Also, I've seen
cpu_relax() pessimise CPU behaviour; putting it into a low-power mode
that takes a while to wake up from.
I think the right way to fix this is to pass a boolean flag to
queued_write_lock_slowpath() to let it know whether it can re-enable
interrupts while checking whether _QW_WAITING is set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists