Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 3 May 2019 17:37:48 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, jack@suse.com,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RT WARNING] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(rt_mutex_owner(lock) !=
 current) with fsfreeze (4.19.25-rt16)
Message-ID: <20190503153747.GC20802@redhat.com>
References: <20190326093421.GA29508@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190419085627.GI4742@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190430125130.uw7mhdnsoqr2v3gf@linutronix.de>
 <20190430132811.GB2589@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190501170953.GB2650@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190502100932.GA7323@redhat.com>
 <20190503141633.GB2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190503141633.GB2606@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:09:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
 >
> > > +static void readers_block(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > +	wait_event_cmd(sem->writer, !sem->readers_block,
> > > +		       __up_read(&sem->rw_sem), __down_read(&sem->rw_sem));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static void block_readers(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +{
> > > +	wait_event_exclusive_cmd(sem->writer, !sem->readers_block,
> > > +				 __up_write(&sem->rw_sem),
> > > +				 __down_write(&sem->rw_sem));
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
> > > +	 * longish rcu_sync_enter() above, new readers could still come in.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	WRITE_ONCE(sem->readers_block, 1);
> > > +}
> >
> > So iiuc, despite it name block_readers() also serializes the writers, ->rw_sem
> > can be dropped by down_write_non_owner() so the new writer can take this lock.
>
> I don't think block_readers() is sufficient to serialize writers;
> suppose two concurrent callers when !->readers_block. Without ->rwsem
> that case would not serialize.

Of course. I meant that the next writer can enter block_readers() if
up_non_owner() drops ->rw_sem, but it will block in wait_event(!readers_block).

(And if we change this code to use wait_event(xchg(readers_block) == 0) we
 can remove rw_sem altogether).

The main problem is that this is sub-optimal. We can have a lot of readers
sleeping in __down_read() when percpu_down_write() succeeds, then after
percpu_down_write_non_owner() does up_write() they all will be woken just
to hang in readers_block(). Plus the new readers will need to pass the
lock-check-unlock-schedule path.

Peter, just in case... I see another patch from you but I need to run away
till Monday.

Oleg.