Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack

[Ingo Molnar]

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 3) sched_yield() makes me shudder
> 
>    CPU0			CPU1	
> 
>    taskA
>      lock(x->lock)
> 
>    preemption
>    taskC
> 			taskB
> 			  lock(y->lock);
> 			  x = y->x;
> 			  if (!try_lock(x->lock)) {
> 			    unlock(y->lock);
> 			    boost(taskA);
> 			    sched_yield();  <- returns immediately

So I'm still struggling with properly parsing the usecase.

If y->x might become invalid the moment we drop y->lock, what makes the 'taskA' 
use (after we've dropped y->lock) safe? Shouldn't we at least also have a 
task_get(taskA)/task_put(taskA) reference count, to make sure the boosted task 
stays around?

And if we are into getting reference counts, why not solve it at a higher level 
and get a reference count to 'x' to make sure it's safe to use? Then we could do:

        lock(y->lock);
retry:
	x = y->x;
        if (!trylock(x->lock)) {
		get_ref(x->count)
                unlock(y->lock);
                lock(x->lock);
                lock(y->lock);
		put_ref(x->count);
		if (y->x != x) { /* Retry if 'x' got dropped meanwhile */
			unlock(x->lock);
			goto retry;
		}
        }

Or so.

Note how much safer this sequence is, and still just as fast in the common case 
(which I suppose is the main motivation within dcache.c?).

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/