On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:44:57 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 14:57 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:56:46 -0400
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > * Eric Dumazet (dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > > Epilogue due to master Jarek. Lockdep carest not about the locking
> > > > > doth bestowed. Therefore no keys are needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > So far, so good, should be ready for inclusion now, nobody complained :)
> > > >
> > > > I include the final patch, merge of your last two patches.
> > > >
> > > > David, could you please review it once again and apply it if it's OK ?
> > >
> > > > Thanks to all for your help and patience
> > > >
> > > > [PATCH] netfilter: use per-CPU recursive lock {XV}
> > >
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > Suitable name would probably be :
> > >
> >
> > But Linus is trying to delude himself.
> >
> > This usage is recursive even if he doesn't like the terminology.
> > The same CPU has to be able to reacquire the read lock without deadlocking.
> > If reader/writer locks were implemented in a pure writer gets priority
> > method, then this code would break! So yes read locks can be used recursively
> > now in Linux, but if the were implemented differently then this code
> > would break. For example, the -rt kernel turns all read/write locks into
> > mutexs, so the -rt kernel developers will have to address this.
>
> A recursive lock has the property:
>
> lock()
> {
> if (lock->owner == current) {
> lock->depth++;
> return;
> }
>
> /* regular lock stuff */
> }
>
> unlock()
> {
> if (!--lock->depth)
> /* regular unlock */
> }
Only on Linux, and only because you look at locking from
the point of view of the magic variable "current" process
point of view.
> non of the linux kernel locking primitives have this -- with the
> possible exception of the cpu-hotplug lock.
>
> What rwlock_t has, is reader bias to the point where you can utterly
> starve writers, with the side effect that you can obtain multiple read
> ownerships without causing a deadlock.
But what happens when this side effect disappears?
> This is not what is called a recursive lock. A recursive lock would have
> each owner only once, this rwlock_t thing is simply so unfair that it
> can have unlimited owners, including multiple copies of the same one.
>
> rwsem has fifo fairness, and therefore can deadlock in this scenario,
> suppose thread A does a read, thread B tries a write and blocks, then
> thread A recurses and tries to obtain another read ownership --
> deadlock, as the FIFO fairness will demand the second read ownership
> will wait on the pending writer, which will wait on the outstanding read
> owner.
>
> Now if rwsem were a fifo-fair recursive lock, the above would not
> deadlock, since it would detect that the task already had (read)
> ownership and simply increment the depth, instead of trying to acquire a
> second ownership.
>
> This is all common and well understood terminology, not something Linus
> invented just to harras you with.
In Documentation/ ? online ? Where is the definition? The only reference
I se is indirectly in DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl.
> Generally speaking we do not condone recursive locking strategies -- and
> afaik reiserfs (as per the BKL) and the network code (as per abusing
> rwlock_t unfairness) are the only offenders.
>
> Like Linus stated, recursive locking is generally poor taste and
> indicates you basically gave up on trying to find a proper locking
> scheme. We should very much work towards getting rid of these
> abberations instead of adding new ones.
The people complaining about naming never seem to be the ones providing
workable suggestions or patches.
> Linus is very much right on what he said, and you calling him delusional
> only high-lights your ignorance on the issue.
>
> [ PS. -rt implements rwlock_t as a proper recursive lock (either a mutex
> or a full multi-owner reader-writer lock with PI fairness) so if
> anybody abuses rwlock_t unfairness in a way that is not strict owner
> recursive we have a problem. ]
Name it "dog's breath locking" for all I care. I am not bothering
with arguments over names; there is real work to do elsewhere.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
