[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20231226104652.1491-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:46:52 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@...cinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: Introduce a write lock/unlock wrapper for tasklist_lock
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:27:05 -0600 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> writes:
> > 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.
lock(&lock->wait_lock)
enable irq
int
lock(&lock->wait_lock)
You are adding chance for recursive locking.
>
> Yes. It seems to make sense to distinguish between write_lock_irq and
> write_lock_irqsave and fix this for all of write_lock_irq.
>
> Either that or someone can put in the work to start making the
> tasklist_lock go away.
>
> Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists