Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Linux-ia64] reader-writer livelock problem | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Date | 08 Nov 2002 09:38:25 -0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 09:25, Linus Torvalds wrote: > There's another reason for not doing it that way: allowing readers to keep > interrupts on even in the presense of interrupt uses of readers. > > If you do the "pending writes stop readers" approach, you get > > cpu1 cpu2 > > read_lock() - get > > write_lock_irq() - pending > > irq happens > - read_lock() - deadlock > > and that means that you need to make readers protect against interrupts > even if the interrupts only read themselves.
Even without interrupts that would be a bug. It isn't ever safe to attempt to retake a read lock if you already hold it, because you may deadlock with a pending writer. Fair multi-reader locks aren't recursive locks.
> NOTE! I'm not saying the existing practice is necessarily a good tradeoff, > and maybe we should just make sure to find all such cases and turn the > read_lock() calls into read_lock_irqsave() and then make the rw-locks > block readers on pending writers. But it's certainly more work and cause > for subtler problems than just naively changing the rw implementation.
Yes, I'd agree. It would definitely be a behavioural change with respect to the legality of retaking a lock for reading, which would probably be quite irritating to find (since they'd only cause a problem if they actually coincide with an attempted write lock).
> Actually, giving this som emore thought, I really suspect that the > simplest solution is to alloc a separate "fair_read_lock()", and paths > that need to care about fairness (and know they don't have the irq > issue) > can use that, slowly porting users over one by one...
Do you mean have a separate lock type, or have two different read_lock operations on the current type?
J
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |