lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH 1/5] cgroups: revamp subsys array
Fix "To" and "Cc"..

Li Zefan wrote:
> Ben Blum wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 03:38:43PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>> @@ -1291,6 +1324,7 @@ static int cgroup_get_sb(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>>>> struct cgroupfs_root *new_root;
>>>>
>>>> /* First find the desired set of subsystems */
>>>> + down_read(&subsys_mutex);
>>> Hmm.. this can lead to deadlock. sget() returns success with sb->s_umount
>>> held, so here we have:
>>>
>>> down_read(&subsys_mutex);
>>>
>>> down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>>>
>>> On the other hand, sb->s_umount is held before calling kill_sb(),
>>> so when umounting we have:
>>>
>>> down_write(&sb->s_umount);
>>>
>>> down_read(&subsys_mutex);
>> Unless I'm gravely mistaken, you can't have deadlock on an rwsem when
>> it's being taken for reading in both cases? You would have to have at
>> least one of the cases being down_write.
>>
>
> lockdep will warn on this..
>
> And it can really lead to deadlock, though not so obivously:
>
> thread 1 thread 2 thread 3
> -------------------------------------------
> | read(A) write(B)
> |
> | write(A)
> |
> | read(A)
> |
> | write(B)
> |
>
> t3 is waiting for t1 to release the lock, then t2 tries to
> acquire A lock to read, but it has to wait because of t3,
> and t1 has to wait t2.
>
> Note: a read lock has to wait if a write lock is already
> waiting for the lock.
>
>> In fairness to readability, perhaps subsys_mutex should instead be
>> subsys_rwsem? It seemed to me to be that calling it "mutex" was
>> conventional anyway.
>>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-09 07:19    [W:0.079 / U:1.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site