Re: [PATCH v5 01/45] percpu_rwlock: Introduce the global reader-writerlock backend

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 02/11/2013 06:11 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> We can use global rwlocks as shown below safely, without fear of deadlocks:
>>
>> Readers:
>>
>>          CPU 0                                CPU 1
>>          ------                               ------
>>
>> 1.    spin_lock(&random_lock);             read_lock(&my_rwlock);
>>
>>
>> 2.    read_lock(&my_rwlock);               spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> The lock order on CPU 0 is unsafe if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 
> and on CPU 1 if CPU2 can do:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&random_lock);
> 	write_lock(&my_rwlock);
> 

Right..

> I presume you were specifically excluding these situations?
>

Yes.. Those cases are simple to find out and fix (by changing the
lock ordering). My main problem was with CPU 0 and CPU 1 as shown above..
... and using a global rwlock helps ease that part out.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
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/