Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:32:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     'Waiman Long' <longman@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@openwall.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@au1.ibm.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rwsem: Implement down_read_interruptible
Message-ID: <20201208123204.GW2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <87tut2bqik.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87k0tybqfy.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <620f0908-c70a-9e54-e1b5-71d086b20756@redhat.com>
 <20201207090243.GE3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <7be81903-14e3-7485-83e7-02e65e80e8c3@redhat.com>
 <c781c59872e742c2b64f1aa70c30d7e2@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <aef54faf-cead-403c-6088-ff52ce1a5dde@redhat.com>
 <71db845efc7d44b5a7d23b0e55b3a496@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <71db845efc7d44b5a7d23b0e55b3a496@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:12:36AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Waiman Long
> > Sent: 07 December 2020 19:02
> ...
> > > How much more difficult would it be to also add a timeout option?
> > > I looked at adding one to the mutex code - and fell into a big pile
> > > of replicated code.
> > >
> > > ISTM that one the initial locked exchange (and spin) fails a few
> > > extra instructions when heading for the sleep don't really matter
> > >
> > Actually, I had tried that before. See
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190911150537.19527-1-longman@redhat.com/
> > 
> > That is for rwsem, but the same can be done for mutex. However, Peter
> > didn't seem to like the idea of a timeout parameter. Anyway, it is
> > certainly doable if there is a good use case for it.
> 
> 'Unfortunately' my use-case if for an out-of-tree driver.
> 
> The problem I was solving is a status call blocking because
> some other code is 'stuck' (probably an oops) with a mutex held.

Working around oopses is not a sane use-case. If you oops, you get to
keep all the pieces.