Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:22:13 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
Cc:     ebiederm@xmission.com, kernel@quicinc.com,
        quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com, keescook@chromium.or,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org, paul@paul-moore.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: Introduce a write lock/unlock wrapper for
 tasklist_lock
Message-ID: <ZXnaNSrtaWbS2ivU@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20231213101745.4526-1-quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231213101745.4526-1-quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 06:17:45PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> +static inline void write_lock_tasklist_lock(void)
> +{
> +	while (1) {
> +		local_irq_disable();
> +		if (write_trylock(&tasklist_lock))
> +			break;
> +		local_irq_enable();
> +		cpu_relax();

This is a bad implementation though.  You don't set the _QW_WAITING flag
so readers don't know that there's a pending writer.  Also, I've seen
cpu_relax() pessimise CPU behaviour; putting it into a low-power mode
that takes a while to wake up from.

I think the right way to fix this is to pass a boolean flag to
queued_write_lock_slowpath() to let it know whether it can re-enable
interrupts while checking whether _QW_WAITING is set.