Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:19:17 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        jack@suse.cz, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock
In-Reply-To: <20170328163918.GA27446@linux-80c1.suse>
References: <1488863010-13028-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
        <1488863010-13028-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
        <2f7628f4-58e1-22c4-ccbe-3106c15cb405@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
        <20170328163918.GA27446@linux-80c1.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <20170403161917.4ef46f17@nimbus>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1142
Lines: 35

Le Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:39:18 -0700,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> a écrit : 
> I'll wait to see if there are any more concerns and send a v2 with
> your corrections.

Hi Bavidlohr, I think there is a major issue regarding the task
catching a signal in wait_for_range().
I can see it when a thread is catching a signal, the process deadlock
in exit path.

Let's imagine all these tasks waiting for the complete range lock, so
range doesn't matter:

A get the lock in write
B want the read lock => B->blocking_range=1 (because of A)
C want the write lock => C->blocking_range=2 (A,B)
D want the read lock => D->blocking_range=3 (A,B,C)
=> C catch a signal and exit wait_for_ranges()
A release the lock 
        => B->blocking_range=0
        => D->blocking_range=2 (D has not seen C removal)
=> B get the lock
B release the lock  
        => D->blocking_range=1

D remains blocked while no one has the lock !

The issue is when removing a task from the interval tree, we
should decrement all the blocking_ranges of the task added to that
range after the one leaving... I can't see an easy fix for that :(

Am I right ?

Cheers,
Laurent.