On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:46 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/12/19 9:55 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:10 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019-11-11 21:35:35 [-0600], Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>> 28d0e36bf9686 ("OF: Fixup resursive locking code paths")
> >>>> d6d3c4e656513 ("OF: convert devtree lock from rw_lock to raw spinlock")
> >>>
> >>> So to summarize, we changed mainline to fix RT which then broke RT. :)
> >>
> >> correct, but we were good until v4.17-rc1 :)
> >>
> >>>> I've been looking into making devtree_lock a spinlock_t which would
> >>>> avoid this patch. I haven't seen an issue during boot on arm64 even
> >>>> with hotplug.
> >>>
> >>> Did you look into using RCU reader locks any more?
> >>
> >> A little bit. The writers, which modify the node, would need to replace
> >> the whole node. So this is where things got a little complicated.
> >
> > Why is that exactly? That's pretty much how node and property updates
> > work anyways though maybe not strictly enforced. The other updates are
> > atomic flags and ref counts which I assume are fine. The spinlock
> > protects traversing the tree of nodes and list of properties.
> > Traversing and updates would need to follow similar semantics as
> > rculist, right? BTW, there's been some thoughts to move node and
> > property lists to list_head. We may want to do that rather than trying
> > to roll our own RCU code.
> >
> >> Frank wasn't a big fan of it back then and he still wasn't a few weeks
> >> back.
> >
> > I guess you spoke at ELCE. RCU seems like the right locking to me as
> > we're almost entirely reads and I haven't seen another proposal.
> >
> >> If you two agree to prefer RCU over this patch then I would look more
> >> into adding RCU into the lookup path. The argument was that this isn't
> >> time critical. I'm just trying to avoid to replace the locking for
> >> nothing.
> >> So, should I come up with a RCU patch?
> >
> > Lets see what Frank says first.
>
> RCU is good for adding list entries, deleting list entries, and updating
> the value(s) of a list element.
>
> RCU is not good for excluding readers of a data structure while multiple
> entries are being added, deleted, and/or modified, such that the readers
> only see the state of the data structure either (1) before any changes
> or (2) after all changes occur. Overlay application and removal require
> multiple modifications, with readers seeing either the before state of
> the after state.
Do we ensure that currently? The of_mutex provides what you describe,
but most or all the reader paths don't take the mutex. Even the
changeset API takes the spinlock a single node or property at a time.
Rob
