Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 11:19 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > void sma_lock(struct sem_array *sma) /* global */
> > {
> >       int i;
> >
> >       sma->global_locked = 1;
> >       smp_wmb(); /* can we merge with the LOCK ? */
> >       spin_lock(&sma->global_lock);
> >
> >       /* wait for all local locks to go away */
> >       for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++)
> >               spin_unlock_wait(&sem->sem_base[i]->lock);      
> > }
> >
> > void sma_lock_one(struct sem_array *sma, int nr) /* local */
> > {
> >       smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in sma_lock() */
> >       if (unlikely(sma->global_locked)) { /* wait for global lock */
> >               while (sma->global_locked)
> >                       spin_unlock_wait(&sma->global_lock);
> >       }
> >       spin_lock(&sma->sem_base[nr]->lock);
> > }

I since realized there's an ordering problem with ->global_locked, we
need to use spin_is_locked() or somesuch.

Two competing sma_lock() operations will screw over the separate
variable.

> 
> > This still has the problem of a non-preemptible section of
> O(sem_nsems)
> > (with the avg wait-time on the local lock). Could we make the global
> > lock a sleeping lock?
> 
> Not without breaking your scheme above :)

How would making sma->global_lock a mutex wreck anything?

--
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/