On 02/09/2013 04:17 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:12:37PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:00:04 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>> On 01/24/2013 01:27 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:03:52AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>>> CPU 0 CPU 1 >>>>> >>>>> read_lock(&rwlock) >>>>> >>>>> write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0 >>>>> //has acquired the lock for read >>>>> >>>>> read_lock(&rwlock) >>>>> ^^^^^ >>>>> What happens here? Does CPU 0 start spinning (and hence deadlock) or will >>>>> it continue realizing that it already holds the rwlock for read? >>>> >>>> I don't think rwlock allows nesting write lock inside read lock. >>>> read_lock(); write_lock() will always deadlock. >>>> >>> >>> Sure, I understand that :-) My question was, what happens when *two* CPUs >>> are involved, as in, the read_lock() is invoked only on CPU 0 whereas the >>> write_lock() is invoked on CPU 1. >>> >>> For example, the same scenario shown above, but with slightly different >>> timing, will NOT result in a deadlock: >>> >>> Scenario 2: >>> CPU 0 CPU 1 >>> >>> read_lock(&rwlock) >>> >>> >>> read_lock(&rwlock) //doesn't spin >>> >>> write_lock(&rwlock) //spins, because CPU 0 >>> //has acquired the lock for read >>> >>> >>> So I was wondering whether the "fairness" logic of rwlocks would cause >>> the second read_lock() to spin (in the first scenario shown above) because >>> a writer is already waiting (and hence new readers should spin) and thus >>> cause a deadlock. >> >> In my understanding, current x86 rwlock does basically this (of course, >> in an atomic fashion): >> >> >> #define RW_LOCK_BIAS 0x10000 >> >> rwlock_init(rwlock) >> { >> rwlock->lock = RW_LOCK_BIAS; >> } >> >> arch_read_lock(rwlock) >> { >> retry: >> if (--rwlock->lock >= 0) >> return; >> >> rwlock->lock++; >> while (rwlock->lock < 1) >> continue; >> >> goto retry; >> } >> >> arch_write_lock(rwlock) >> { >> retry: >> if ((rwlock->lock -= RW_LOCK_BIAS) == 0) >> return; >> >> rwlock->lock += RW_LOCK_BIAS; >> while (rwlock->lock != RW_LOCK_BIAS) >> continue; >> >> goto retry; >> } >> >> >> So I can't find where the 'fairness' logic comes from.. > > I looked through several of the rwlock implementations, and in all of > them the writer backs off if it sees readers -- or refrains from asserting > ownership of the lock to begin with. > > So it should be OK to use rwlock as shown in the underlying patch. > Thanks a lot for confirming that Paul! So I guess we can use rwlocks as it is, since its behaviour suits our needs perfectly. So I won't tinker with atomic counters for a while, atleast not until someone starts making rwlocks fair.. ;-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html