On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:33:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:51:47PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > Yes. CPU2 has a pre-existing reader that CPU1's synchronize_srcu() > > > must wait for. But CPU2's reader cannot end until CPU1 releases > > > its lock, which it cannot do until after CPU2's reader ends. Thus, > > > as you say, deadlock. > > > > > > The rule is that if you are within any kind of RCU read-side critical > > > section, you cannot directly or indirectly wait for a grace period > > > from that same RCU flavor. > > > > Right. This is indirect then, in a way. > > Agreed, in a way. ;-) > > > > There are some challenges, though. This is OK: > > > > > > CPU1 CPU2 > > > i = srcu_read_lock(&mysrcu); mutex_lock(&my_lock); > > > mutex_lock(&my_lock); i = srcu_read_lock(&mysrcu); > > > srcu_read_unlock(&mysrcu, i); mutex_unlock(&my_lock); > > > mutex_unlock(&my_lock); srcu_read_unlock(&mysrcu, i); > > > > > > CPU3 > > > synchronize_srcu(&mylock); > > > > > > This could be a deadlock for reader-writer locking, but not for SRCU. > > > > Hmm, yes, that's a good point. If srcu_read_lock() was read_lock, and > > synchronize_srcu() was write_lock(), then the write_lock() could stop > > CPU2's read_lock() from acquiring the lock, and thus cause a deadlock. > > Yes. > > > However, I'm not convinced that lockdep handles reader/writer locks > > correctly to start with, right now, since it *didn't* actually trigger > > any warnings when I annotated SRCU as a reader/writer lock. > > I haven't looked into lockdep enough to know either way. > > > > This is also OK: > > > CPU1 CPU2 > > > i = srcu_read_lock(&mysrcu); mutex_lock(&my_lock); > > > mutex_lock(&my_lock); synchronize_srcu(&yoursrc > > u); > > > srcu_read_unlock(&mysrcu, i); mutex_unlock(&my_lock); > > > mutex_unlock(&my_lock); > > > > > > Here CPU1's read-side critical sections are for mysrcu, which is > > > independent of CPU2's grace period for yoursrcu. > > > > Right, but that's already covered by having separate a lockdep_map for > > each SRCU subsystem (mysrcu, yoursrcu). > > I hope so, but haven't proved that this would work in all possible cases. > > > > So you could flag any lockdep cycle that contained a reader and a > > > synchronous grace period for the same flavor of RCU, where for SRCU > > > the identity of the srcu_struct structure is part of the flavor. > > > > Right. Basically, I think SRCU should be like a reader/writer lock > > (perhaps fixed to work right). The only difference seems to be the > > scenario you outlined above (first of the two)? > > > > Actually, given the scenario above, for lockdep purposes the > > reader/writer lock is actually the same as a recursive lock, I guess? > > Except that a recursive reader/writer lock can still have deadlocks > involving the outermost reader that would not be deadlocks for the > equivalent SRCU scenarios. > > > You outlined a scenario in which the reader gets blocked due to a > > writer (CPU3 doing a write_lock()) so the reader can still participate > > in a deadlock cycle since it can - without any other locks being held > > by CPU3 that participate - cause a deadlock between CPU1 and CPU2 here. > > For lockdep then, even seeing the CPU1 and CPU2 scenarios should be > > sufficient to flag a deadlock (*). > > Might this be one of the reasons why lockdep has problems with > reader-writer locks? > > > This part then isn't true for SRCU, because there forward progress will > > still be made. So for SRCU, the "reader" side really needs to be > > connected with a "writer" side to form a deadlock cycle, unlike for a > > reader/writer lock. > > Yes, for SRCU, srcu_read_lock() itself never blocks, so it never > participates directly in a deadlock cycle. It has to be the case > that something within the SRCU read-side critical section blocks > and takes its place in the deadlock cycle. > > Then again, if you didn't have something blocking within your SRCU > read-side critical section, why would you be using SRCU instead of > just plain RCU? ;-) > > > johannes > > > > (*) technically only after checking that write_lock() is ever used, but > > ... seems reasonable enough to assume that it will be used, since why > > would anyone ever use a reader/writer lock if there are only readers? > > That's a no-op. > > Makes sense to me! The only reasons I can come up with are things like > shutting lockdep up when it wants a given lock read-held or some such. And I cannot resist adding this one: CPU 1 CPU 2 i = srcu_read_lock(&s1); mutex_lock(&l1); mutex_lock(&l1); synchronize_srcu(&s2); mutex_unlock(&l1); mutex_unlock(&l1); srcu_read_unlock(&s1, i); CPU 3 CPU 4 i = srcu_read_lock(&s2); mutex_lock(&l2); mutex_lock(&l2); synchronize_srcu(&s1); mutex_unlock(&l2); mutex_unlock(&l2); srcu_read_unlock(&s2, i); Removing the SRCU statements from any of these CPU would break the deadlock. This can be easily extended to a deadlock cycle involving any number of srcu_struct structures. But this would still be a cycle involving an srcu_read_lock() and a synchronize_srcu() on the same srcu_struct, which is reassuring. Thanx, Paul
