lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 10/14] locking/percpu-rwsem: Add percpu_is_write_locked() and percpu_is_read_locked()
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 14:48, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > +bool percpu_is_read_locked(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > +{
> > + return per_cpu_sum(*sem->read_count) != 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_is_read_locked);
>
> I don't think this is correct; read_count can have spurious increments.
>
> If we look at __percpu_down_read_trylock(), it does roughly something
> like this:
>
> this_cpu_inc(*sem->read_count);
> smp_mb();
> if (!sem->block)
> return true;
> this_cpu_dec(*sem->read_count);
> return false;
>
> So percpu_is_read_locked() needs to ensure the read_count is non-zero
> *and* that block is not set.

I shall go and fix. v4 incoming (if more comments before that, please shout).

> That said; I really dislike the whole _is_locked family with a passion.
> Let me try and figure out what you need this for.

As in the other email, it's for the dbg_*() functions for kgdb's
benefit (avoiding deadlock if kgdb wants a breakpoint, while we're in
the process of handing out a breakpoint elsewhere and have the locks
taken).

Thanks,
-- Marco

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-29 08:02    [W:0.075 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site