lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 04/46] percpu_rwlock: Implement the core design of Per-CPU Reader-Writer Locks
On 02/18/2013 09:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> On 02/18/2013 09:15 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> Hi Srivasta,
>>
>> I admit not having followed in detail the threads about the previous
>> iteration, so some of my comments may have been discussed already
>> before - apologies if that is the case.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Reader-writer locks and per-cpu counters are recursive, so they can be
>>> used in a nested fashion in the reader-path, which makes per-CPU rwlocks also
>>> recursive. Also, this design of switching the synchronization scheme ensures
>>> that you can safely nest and use these locks in a very flexible manner.
[...]
>>> void percpu_write_lock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock)
>>> {
>>> + unsigned int cpu;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Tell all readers that a writer is becoming active, so that they
>>> + * start switching over to the global rwlock.
>>> + */
>>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>>> + per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_rwlock->rw_state, cpu)->writer_signal = true;
>>
>> I don't see anything preventing a race with the corresponding code in
>> percpu_write_unlock() that sets writer_signal back to false. Did I
>> miss something here ? It seems to me we don't have any guarantee that
>> all writer signals will be set to true at the end of the loop...
>>
>
> Ah, thanks for pointing that out! IIRC Oleg had pointed this issue in the last
> version, but back then, I hadn't fully understood what he meant. Your
> explanation made it clear. I'll work on fixing this.
>

We can fix this by using the simple patch (untested) shown below.
The alternative would be to acquire the rwlock for write, update the
->writer_signal values, release the lock, wait for readers to switch,
again acquire the rwlock for write with interrupts disabled etc... which
makes it kinda messy, IMHO. So I prefer the simple version shown below.


diff --git a/lib/percpu-rwlock.c b/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
index bf95e40..64ccd3f 100644
--- a/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
+++ b/lib/percpu-rwlock.c
@@ -50,6 +50,12 @@
(__this_cpu_read((pcpu_rwlock)->rw_state->writer_signal))


+/*
+ * Spinlock to synchronize access to the writer's data-structures
+ * (->writer_signal) from multiple writers.
+ */
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(writer_side_lock);
+
int __percpu_init_rwlock(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
const char *name, struct lock_class_key *rwlock_key)
{
@@ -191,6 +197,8 @@ void percpu_write_lock_irqsave(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
{
unsigned int cpu;

+ spin_lock(&writer_side_lock);
+
/*
* Tell all readers that a writer is becoming active, so that they
* start switching over to the global rwlock.
@@ -252,5 +260,6 @@ void percpu_write_unlock_irqrestore(struct percpu_rwlock *pcpu_rwlock,
per_cpu_ptr(pcpu_rwlock->rw_state, cpu)->writer_signal = false;

write_unlock_irqrestore(&pcpu_rwlock->global_rwlock, *flags);
+ spin_unlock(&writer_side_lock);
}


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-18 19:41    [W:0.147 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site