On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 13:03 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

quoted

A straight-forward (and obvious) algorithm to implement Per-CPU Reader-Writer
locks can also lead to too many deadlock possibilities which can make it very
hard/impossible to use. This is explained in the example below, which helps
justify the need for a different algorithm to implement flexible Per-CPU
Reader-Writer locks.

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);


Writer:

         CPU 2:
         ------

       write_lock(&my_rwlock);

I thought global locks are now fair. That is, a reader will block if a
writer is waiting. Hence, the above should deadlock on the current
rwlock_t types.

I believe you are mistaken here. struct rw_semaphore is fair (and
blocking), but rwlock_t is unfair. The reason we can't easily make
rwlock_t fair is because tasklist_lock currently depends on the
rwlock_t unfairness - tasklist_lock readers typically don't disable
local interrupts, and tasklist_lock may be acquired again from within
an interrupt, which would deadlock if rwlock_t was fair and a writer
was queued by the time the interrupt is processed.

We need to fix those locations (or better yet, remove all rwlocks ;-)

tasklist_lock is the main remaining user. I'm not sure about removing
rwlock_t, but I would like to at least make it fair somehow :)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.