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 18:51, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 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()?

In case of &fown->lock we may always disable irqs for all the places, where it's
taken for read, i.e. read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock). This seems to fix the problem
for this lock.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 17:55    [W:0.099 / U:1.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site