lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem
On Thu, 8 May 2008 00:44:06 +0200
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:31:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Nope. We only need to take the global lock before taking *two or more* of
> > the per-vma locks.
> >
> > I really wish I'd thought of that.
>
> I don't see how you can avoid taking the system-wide-global lock
> before every single anon_vma->lock/i_mmap_lock out there without
> mm_lock.
>
> Please note, we can't allow a thread to be in the middle of
> zap_page_range while mmu_notifier_register runs.
>
> vmtruncate takes 1 single lock, the i_mmap_lock of the inode. Not more
> than one lock and we've to still take the global-system-wide lock
> _before_ this single i_mmap_lock and no other lock at all.
>
> Please elaborate, thanks!


umm...


CPU0: CPU1:

spin_lock(a->lock); spin_lock(b->lock);
spin_lock(b->lock); spin_lock(a->lock);

bad.

CPU0: CPU1:

spin_lock(global_lock) spin_lock(global_lock);
spin_lock(a->lock); spin_lock(b->lock);
spin_lock(b->lock); spin_lock(a->lock);

Is OK.


CPU0: CPU1:

spin_lock(global_lock)
spin_lock(a->lock); spin_lock(b->lock);
spin_lock(b->lock); spin_unlock(b->lock);
spin_lock(a->lock);
spin_unlock(a->lock);

also OK.

As long as all code paths which can take two-or-more locks are all covered
by the global lock there is no deadlock scenario. If a thread takes just a
single instance of one of these locks without taking the global_lock then
there is also no deadlock.


Now, if we need to take both anon_vma->lock AND i_mmap_lock in the newly
added mm_lock() thing and we also take both those locks at the same time in
regular code, we're probably screwed.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-08 01:03    [W:0.147 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site