lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes
From
Date
On 06/14/2018 03:29 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:54:15PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 06/14/2018 01:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Currently you don't allow mixing WD and WW contexts (which is not
>>> immediately obvious from the above code), and the above hard relies on
>>> that. Are there sensible use cases for mixing them? IOW will your
>>> current restriction stand without hassle?
>> Contexts _must_ agree on the algorithm used to resolve deadlocks. With
>> Wait-Die, for example, older transactions will wait if a lock is held by a
>> younger transaction and with Wound-Wait, younger transactions will wait if a
>> lock is held by an older transaction so there is no way of mixing them.
> Maybe the compiler should be enforcing that; ie make it a different type?

It's intended to be enforced by storing the algorithm choice in the
WW_MUTEX_CLASS which must be common for an acquire context and the
ww_mutexes it acquires. However, I don't think there is a check that
that holds. I guess we could add it as a DEBUG_MUTEX test in
ww_mutex_lock().

Thanks,

Thomas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-14 15:44    [W:0.140 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site