Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:29:39 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] document ->sighand protection, rcu_read_unlock() deadlocks |
| |
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 09:56:04PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Ping ;) > > Paul, should I resend or you do not think this can go via your rcu > tree?
Please accept my apologies for missing these!
They are now queued for 3.19.
Thanx, Paul
> On 09/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Paul, could you take these 2 doc patches? Assuming that you agree > > with the comments, of course. > > > > On 09/24, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:03:48PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul, will you agree if we turn it into > > > > ... > > > > /* > > > > * On the succesfull return we hold ->siglock. According to comment > > > > * above rcu_read_unlock() this is against the rules, but scheduler > > > > * locks are fine under this lock, signal_wake_up() takes them too. > > > > */ > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > If you guys continue the guarantee of no deadlock, I am OK with this change. > > > > Heh. Contrary to what I said (and you all were agree ;), this deadlock > > is actually possible, so we can not remove the deadlock-avoidance from > > __lock_task_sighand(). And I do not see how we can cleanup this code > > because preempt_disable() + spin_lock() is not -rt friendly. > > > > I think this deserves a bit of documentation, see 2/2. Perhaps this is > > just me, but imo the current comment is a bit misleading. > > > > "if the caller of rcu_read_unlock() already holds one of these locks ..." > > is not a problem in fact. I mean, pi_lock or rq->lock are special enough, > > nobody should ever call the outermost rcu_read_unlock() with these locks > > held. rt_mutex->wait_lock should be fine too, also because ->boost_mtx > > is private to rcu_boost() and rcu_read_unlock_special(). > > > > But. They can race with each other, and that is why rcu_read_unlock() > > under (say) ->siglock can actually lead to deadlock. And only because > > rt_mutex->wait_lock doesn't disable irqs. Or I am totally confused. > > > > Perhaps we can change rtmutex.c to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave(), or do > > something else... > > > > Oleg. > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 4 +++- > > kernel/fork.c | 5 ++++- > > kernel/signal.c | 12 +++++++++++- > > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >
| |