On 02/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

On 02/28, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 02/27, Michel Lespinasse wrote:

quoted

+void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
+{
+       preempt_disable();
+
+       if (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->local_refcnt) ||
+           arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lgrw->lglock->lock))) {
+               __this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->local_refcnt);

Please look at __this_cpu_generic_to_op(). You need this_cpu_inc()
to avoid the race with irs. The same for _read_unlock.

Hmmm, I was thinking that this was safe because while interrupts might
modify local_refcnt to acquire a nested read lock, they are expected
to release that lock as well which would set local_refcnt back to its
original value ???

Yes, yes, this is correct.

I meant that (in general, x86 is fine) __this_cpu_inc() itself is not
irq-safe. It simply does "pcp += 1".

this_cpu_inc() is fine, _this_cpu_generic_to_op() does cli/sti around.

Just in case, it is not that I really understand why __this_cpu_inc() can
race with irq in this particular case (given that irq handler should
restore the counter).

So perhaps I am wrong again. The comments in include/linux/percpu.h look
confusing to me, and I simply know nothing about !x86 architectures. But
since, say, preempt_disable() doesn't do anything special then probably
__this_cpu_inc() is fine too.

In short: please ignore me ;)

Oleg.