Re: [PATCH 1/2] brw_mutex: big read-write mutex

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Oct 18 2012 - 12:23:30 EST

On 10/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:37:02PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > Suppose that the writer arrives and sees that the value of the counter
> > > is zero,
> >
> > after synchronize_sched(). So there are no readers (but perhaps there
> > are brw_end_read's in flight which already decremented read_ctr)
> But the preempt_disable() region only covers read acquisition. So
> synchronize_sched() waits only for all the brw_start_read() calls to
> reach the preempt_enable()


> -- it cannot wait for all the resulting
> readers to reach the corresponding brw_end_read().


> > > and thus never sleeps, and so is also not awakened?
> >
> > and why do we need wakeup in this case?
> To get the memory barriers required to keep the critical sections
> ordered -- to ensure that everyone sees the reader's critical section
> as ending before the writer's critical section starts.

And now I am starting to think I misunderstood your concern from
the very beginning.

I thought that you meant that without mb() brw_start_write() can
race with brw_end_read() and hang forever.

But probably you meant that we need the barriers to ensure that,
say, if the reader does


then the writer must see CONDITION != 0 after brw_start_write() ?
(or vice-versa)

In this case we need the barrier, yes. Obviously brw_start_write()
can return right after this_cpu_dec() and before wake_up_all().

2/2 doesn't need this guarantee but I agree, this doesn't look
sane in gerenal...

Or I misunderstood you again?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at