Re: [PATCH] atomic: Only take lock when the counter drops to zeroon UP as well

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Wed Apr 22 2009 - 10:09:20 EST


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:56:20PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:32:54PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > > Am 11.04.2009 um 19:49 schrieb "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:13:57PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > >>> I think it is wrong to unconditionally take the lock before calling
> > >>> atomic_dec_and_test() in _atomic_dec_and_lock(). This will deadlock in
> > >>> situation where it is known that the counter will not reach zero (e.g.
> > >>> holding
> > >>> another reference to the same object) but the lock is already taken.
> > >>
> > >> The thought of calling _atomic_dec_and_lock() when you already hold the
> > >> lock really really scares me.
> > >>
> > >> Could you please give an example where you need to do this?
> > >>
> > >
> > > There is a part of the union mount patches that needs to do a union_put()
> > > (which itself includes a path_put() that uses atomic_dec_and_lock() in
> > > mntput() ). Since it is changing the namespace I need to hold the vfsmount
> > > lock. I know that the mnt's count > 1 since it is a parent of the mnt I'm
> > > changing in the mount tree. I could possibly delay the union_put().
> > >
> > > In general this let's atomic_dec_and_lock() behave similar on SMP and UP.
> > > Remember that this already works with CONFIG_SMP as before Nick's patch.
> >
> > I asked, I guess. ;-)
> >
> > There is some sort of common code path, so that you cannot simply call
> > atomic_dec() when holding the lock?
>
> If it is possible I don't want to introduce another special mntput() variant
> just for that code path.

Fair enough!!!

Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/