lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] locking/qrwlock: Give priority to readers with irqs disabled to prevent deadlock
From
Date
On 04.04.2018 18:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 06:24:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> The following situation leads to deadlock:
>>
>> [task 1] [task 2] [task 3]
>> kill_fasync() mm_update_next_owner() copy_process()
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) read_lock(&tasklist_lock) write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
>> send_sigio() <IRQ> ...
>> read_lock(&fown->lock) kill_fasync() ...
>> read_lock(&tasklist_lock) spin_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock) ...
>>
>> Task 1 can't acquire read locked tasklist_lock, since there is
>> already task 3 expressed its wish to take the lock exclusive.
>> Task 2 holds the read locked lock, but it can't take the spin lock.
>>
>> The patch makes queued_read_lock_slowpath() to give task 1 the same
>> priority as it was an interrupt handler, and to take the lock
>
> That re-introduces starvation scenarios. And the above looks like a
> proper deadlock that should be sorted by fixing the locking order.

We can move tasklist_lock out of send_sigio(), but I'm not sure
it's possible for read_lock(&fown->lock).

Is there another solution? Is there reliable way to iterate do_each_pid_task()
with rcu_read_lock()?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 17:51    [W:0.087 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site