Hi,
On (09/14/17 09:55), Laurent Dufour wrote:
[..]
> > so if there are two CPUs, one doing write_seqcount() and the other one
> > doing read_seqcount() then what can happen is something like this
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> >
> > fs_reclaim_acquire()
> > write_seqcount_begin()
> > fs_reclaim_acquire() read_seqcount_begin()
> > write_seqcount_end()
> >
> > CPU0 can't write_seqcount_end() because of fs_reclaim_acquire() from
> > CPU1, CPU1 can't read_seqcount_begin() because CPU0 did write_seqcount_begin()
> > and now waits for fs_reclaim_acquire(). makes sense?
>
> Yes, this makes sense.
>
> But in the case of this series, there is no call to
> __read_seqcount_begin(), and the reader (the speculative page fault
> handler), is just checking for (vm_seq & 1) and if this is true, simply
> exit the speculative path without waiting.
> So there is no deadlock possibility.
probably lockdep just knows that those locks interleave at some
point.
by the way, I think there is one path that can spin
find_vma_srcu()
read_seqbegin()
read_seqcount_begin()
raw_read_seqcount_begin()
__read_seqcount_begin()
-ss
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
