Re: [PATCH] kernel: Introduce a write lock/unlock wrapper for tasklist_lock

[Aiqun Yu (Maria)]

On 12/14/2023 2:27 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 06:17:45PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> > > +static inline void write_lock_tasklist_lock(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	while (1) {
> > > +		local_irq_disable();
> > > +		if (write_trylock(&tasklist_lock))
> > > +			break;
> > > +		local_irq_enable();
> > > +		cpu_relax();
> >
> > This is a bad implementation though.  You don't set the _QW_WAITING flag
Any better ideas and suggestions are welcomed. :)
> > so readers don't know that there's a pending writer.  Also, I've see >> cpu_relax() pessimise CPU behaviour; putting it into a low-power mode
> > that takes a while to wake up from.
> >
> > I think the right way to fix this is to pass a boolean flag to
> > queued_write_lock_slowpath() to let it know whether it can re-enable
> > interrupts while checking whether _QW_WAITING is set.
>
> Yes.  It seems to make sense to distinguish between write_lock_irq and
> write_lock_irqsave and fix this for all of write_lock_irq.
Let me think about this.
It seems a possible because there is a special behavior from reader side 
when in interrupt it will directly get the lock regardless of the 
pending writer.

> Either that or someone can put in the work to start making the
> tasklist_lock go away.
>
> Eric

--
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu