Re: [PATCH v5 04/45] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design ofPer-CPU Reader-Writer Locks

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Srivatsa.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:03:52AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hmm.. I split it up into steps to help explain the reasoning behind
> the code sufficiently, rather than spring all of the intricacies at
> one go (which would make it very hard to write the changelog/comments
> also). The split made it easier for me to document it well in the
> changelog, because I could deal with reasonable chunks of code/complexity
> at a time. IMHO that helps people reading it for the first time to
> understand the logic easily.

I don't know.  It's a judgement call I guess.  I personally would much
prefer having ample documentation as comments in the source itself or
as a separate Documentation/ file as that's what most people are gonna
be looking at to figure out what's going on.  Maybe just compact it a
bit and add more in-line documentation instead?

> > The only two options are either punishing writers or identifying and
> > updating all such possible deadlocks.  percpu_rwsem does the former,
> > right?  I don't know how feasible the latter would be.
> 
> I don't think we can avoid looking into all the possible deadlocks,
> as long as we use rwlocks inside get/put_online_cpus_atomic() (assuming
> rwlocks are fair). Even with Oleg's idea of using synchronize_sched()
> at the writer, we still need to take care of locking rules, because the
> synchronize_sched() only helps avoid the memory barriers at the reader,
> and doesn't help get rid of the rwlocks themselves.

Well, percpu_rwlock don't have to use rwlock for the slow path.  It
can implement its own writer starving locking scheme.  It's not like
implementing slow path global rwlock logic is difficult.

> CPU 0                          CPU 1
> 
> read_lock(&rwlock)
> 
>                               write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0
>                               //has acquired the lock for read
> 
> read_lock(&rwlock)
>    ^^^^^
> What happens here? Does CPU 0 start spinning (and hence deadlock) or will
> it continue realizing that it already holds the rwlock for read?

I don't think rwlock allows nesting write lock inside read lock.
read_lock(); write_lock() will always deadlock.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/