Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks

[Nick Piggin]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:19:59PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:54:09 +0100
> 
> > This was basically reproduced by several cores executing wait
> > with WNOHANG.
> > 
> > Of course it would always be nice to improve locking so
> > contention isn't an issue, but so long as we have rwlocks, we
> > could possibly get into a situation where starvation is
> > triggered *somehow*. So I'd really like to fix this.
> > 
> > This particular starvation on tasklist lock I guess is a local
> > DoS vulnerability even if the workload is not particularly
> > realistic.
> > 
> > Anyway, I don't have a patch yet. I'm sure it can be done
> > without extra atomics in fastpaths. Comments?
> 
> I think nobody would notice if you changed tasklist_lock into
> a spinlock_t, and this would solve the DoS because at least on
> x86 you'd end up with the ticket spinlocks.
> 
> And this is a repeating theme every time the topic of rwlocks come up.
> All uses should just simply be converted gradually to some other
> locking mechanism over time, the cases causing problems taking
> priority.

For tasklist_lock, I'm not so sure. It gets taken fairly often
for read, and has some quite long critical sections. I think
we might start running into contention on lock hold times.

For other locks, I agree. In fact there are a couple of them in
the vfs which I think should be just spinlocks. I'll send some
patches for those.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/