lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: IGMP and rwlock: Dead ocurred again on TILEPro
From
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com> wrote:
> On 2/17/2011 6:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:04:13 -0500
>>
>>> On 2/17/2011 5:53 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>> From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:49:46 -0500
>>>>
>>>>> The fix is to disable interrupts for the arch_read_lock family of methods.
>>>> How does that help handle the race when it happens between different
>>>> cpus, instead of between IRQ and non-IRQ context on the same CPU?
>>> There's no race in that case, since the lock code properly backs off and
>>> retries until the other cpu frees it. The distinction here is that the
>>> non-IRQ context is "wedged" by the IRQ context.
>>>
>>>> Why don't you just use the generic spinlock based rwlock code on Tile,
>>>> since that is all that your atomic instructions can handle
>>>> sufficiently?
>>> The tile-specific code encodes reader/writer information in the same 32-bit
>>> word that the test-and-set instruction manipulates, so it's more efficient
>>> both in space and time. This may not really matter for rwlocks, since no
>>> one cares much about them any more, but that was the motivation.
>> Ok, but IRQ disabling is going to be very expensive.
>
> The interrupt architecture on Tile allows a write to a special-purpose
> register to put you into a "critical section" where no interrupts or faults
> are delivered. So we just need to bracket the read_lock operations with
> two SPR writes; each takes six machine cycles, so we're only adding 12
> cycles to the total cost of taking or releasing a read lock on an rwlock.
>
> --
> Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
> http://www.tilera.com
>
>

I agree that just lock interrupt for read operations should be enough,
but read_unlock() is also the place we should lock interrupt, right?
If interrupt occurred when it hold lock-val after TNS deadlock still
can occur.

When will you release out that patch? Since time is tight, so maybe
I've to fix-up it myself. Though the problem is clearly now, I still
have two questions to confirm:

1. If we use SPR_INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION it will disable all the
interrupt which claimed 'CM', is that right? Should we have to same
its original value and restore it later?
There is some code in Linux:
int __tns_atomic_acquire(atomic_t *lock)
{
int ret;
u32 iterations = 0;
BUG_ON(__insn_mfspr(SPR_INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION));
__insn_mtspr(SPR_INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION, 1);

while((ret = __insn_tns(&lock->counter)) == 1)
delay_backoff(iterations++);
return ret;
}
It just use BUG_ON to check SPR_INTERRUPT_CRITICAL_SECTION have to be
0, is that means that SPR is only used in special situations like
that?
2. Should we lock interrupt for the whole operation of
read_lock()/read_unlock(), or we should leave interrupt critical
section if it run into __raw_read_lock_slow() and before have to
delay_backoff() some time, and re-enter interrupt critical section
again before TNS?




--
Cyberman Wu


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-18 04:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans