lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, forgot to mention sched.c, but that's solvable
>
> It should be fairly easy to add a few 'spin_lock(&tasklist_lock)' around
> stuff that really depended on exclusion from writers. That should
> _hopefully_ be the rare case.
>
> The biggest problem is that there will almost inevitably be things that
> get missed, and any races exposed by lacking locking will be _very_ hard
> to debug and trigger. So what I'd be worried about is not getting to a
> "practically working" state, but any really subtle cases that nobody
> really hits in practice.

I'm aware of that. The number of places where we read_lock
tasklist_lock is 79 in 36 files right now. That's not a horrible task
to go through them one by one and do a case by case conversion with a
proper changelog. That would only leave the write_lock sites.

We can then either do the rw_lock to spin_lock conversion or keep the
rw_lock which has no readers anymore and behaves like a spinlock for a
transition time so reverts of one of the read_lock -> rcu patches
could be done to debug stuff.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-30 23:39    [W:0.102 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site