From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/2] rwsem-rt: Do not allow readers to nest Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:57:10 +0100 Message-ID: <20150218195710.GH28763@linutronix.de> References: <20140409024700.702797305@goodmis.org> <20140409025231.998774075@goodmis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users , Thomas Gleixner , Carsten Emde , John Kacur , Paul Gortmaker , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140409025231.998774075@goodmis.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt | 2014-04-08 22:47:01 [-0400]: >From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" > >The readers of mainline rwsems are not allowed to nest, the rwsems in the >PREEMPT_RT kernel should not nest either. I applied this and this is the reason why cpufreq isn't working. What I see in cpufreq is: | test.sh-788 [004] ....... 61.416288: store: down_read_try | test.sh-788 [004] ....... 61.416296: cpufreq_cpu_get: down_read_try | test.sh-788 [004] ....... 61.416301: cpufreq_cpu_put.part.6: up_read | test.sh-788 [004] ....... 61.416332: store: up_read as you see, one code path takes the read path of rw_sema twice. Looking at the generic implementation, we have: |#define RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE 0x00000000L |#define RWSEM_ACTIVE_BIAS 0x00000001L |#define RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS (-RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK-1) | static inline int __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem) | { | long tmp; | | while ((tmp = sem->count) >= 0) { | if (tmp == cmpxchg(&sem->count, tmp, | tmp + RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS)) { | return 1; | } | } | return 0; | } While sem->count is >= 0 we loop and take the semaphore. So we can have five readers at once. The first writer would set count to a negative value resulting in trylock failure. |static inline void __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem) |{ | if (unlikely(atomic_long_inc_return((atomic_long_t*)&sem->count) <= 0)) | rwsem_down_read_failed(sem); |} Here the same thing but without cmpxchg(). _If_ after an increment the value is negative then we take slowpath. Otherwise we have the lock. I think I'm going to revert this patch. Where is it written that multiple readers of a RW-semaphore can not nest? According to the code we can even have multiple readers without nesting (two+ processes may take a reader lock). Sebastian