lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/20] mm: VMA sequence count
From
Date
On 14/09/2017 10:13, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On (09/14/17 09:55), Laurent Dufour wrote:
> [..]
>>> so if there are two CPUs, one doing write_seqcount() and the other one
>>> doing read_seqcount() then what can happen is something like this
>>>
>>> CPU0 CPU1
>>>
>>> fs_reclaim_acquire()
>>> write_seqcount_begin()
>>> fs_reclaim_acquire() read_seqcount_begin()
>>> write_seqcount_end()
>>>
>>> CPU0 can't write_seqcount_end() because of fs_reclaim_acquire() from
>>> CPU1, CPU1 can't read_seqcount_begin() because CPU0 did write_seqcount_begin()
>>> and now waits for fs_reclaim_acquire(). makes sense?
>>
>> Yes, this makes sense.
>>
>> But in the case of this series, there is no call to
>> __read_seqcount_begin(), and the reader (the speculative page fault
>> handler), is just checking for (vm_seq & 1) and if this is true, simply
>> exit the speculative path without waiting.
>> So there is no deadlock possibility.
>
> probably lockdep just knows that those locks interleave at some
> point.
>
>
> by the way, I think there is one path that can spin
>
> find_vma_srcu()
> read_seqbegin()
> read_seqcount_begin()
> raw_read_seqcount_begin()
> __read_seqcount_begin()


That's right, but here this is the sequence counter mm->mm_seq, not the
vm_seq one.

This one is held to protect walking the VMA list "locklessly"...

Cheers,
Laurent.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-14 19:27    [W:0.103 / U:3.748 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site