On 02/07/2019 03:54 PM, Waiman Long wrote:

On 02/07/2019 03:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 02:07:19PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:

quoted

On 32-bit architectures, there aren't enough bits to hold both.
64-bit architectures, however, can have enough bits to do that. For
x86-64, the physical address can use up to 52 bits. That is 4PB of
memory. That leaves 12 bits available for other use. The task structure
pointer is also aligned to the L1 cache size. That means another 6 bits
(64 bytes cacheline) will be available. Reserving 2 bits for status
flags, we will have 16 bits for the reader count.  That can supports
up to (64k-1) readers.

64k readers sounds like a number that is fairly 'easy' to reach, esp. on
64bit. These are preemptible locks after all, all we need to do is get
64k tasks nested on enough CPUs.

I'm sure there's some willing Java proglet around that spawns more than
64k threads just because it can. Run it on a big enough machine (ISTR
there's a number of >1k CPU systems out there) and voila.

Yes, that can be a problem.

One possible solution is to check if the count goes negative. If so,
fail the read lock and make the readers wait in the wait queue until the
count is in positive territory. That effectively reduces the reader
count to 15 bits, but it will avoid the overflow situation. I will try
to add that support into the next version.

Cheers,
Longman

Something like the attached patch.

Cheers,
Longman