Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:34:02 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwbase: Prevent indefinite writer starvation
Message-ID: <Y8remhZnLCtr+y5s@linutronix.de>
References: <20230117083817.togfwc5cy4g67e5r@techsingularity.net>
 <Y8avJm1FQI9vB9cv@linutronix.de>
 <20230117165021.t5m7c2d6frbbfzig@techsingularity.net>
 <Y8gPhTGkfCbGwoUu@linutronix.de>
 <20230119011538.3247-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20230119135903.3524-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20230120093711.3862-1-hdanton@sina.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230120093711.3862-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-01-20 17:37:11 [+0800], Hillf Danton wrote:
> 
> I am fine with either 4ms or 40ms, or a second.
> 
> Given the cure, does it still work when reader bias for RT tasks is allowed?
No.

> If not, why keep starving waiters after they pay the 40ms price?

That kind of starvation will also happen if you have only spinlock_t
locks and you say 3 RT tasks that acquire the lock back to back. And a
few SCHED_OTHER tasks. Those 3 will be always be in front of the queue
(as they skip the line) and the following SCHED_OTHER tasks will starve
and never get the lock.

So it is basically the same scenario.

Sebastian