Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:56:20 +0200
From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Linux-Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] atomic: Only take lock when the counter drops to zero on UP as well
Message-ID: <20090422125620.GF11220@bolzano.suse.de>
References: <20090411141754.45F7B16080@e179.suse.de> <20090411174905.GH6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <627226E3-0AC6-4B25-A338-EA65F6C85BFF@suse.de> <20090413060243.GS6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090413060243.GS6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Organization: SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1824
Lines: 43

On Sun, Apr 12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:32:54PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> > Am 11.04.2009 um 19:49 schrieb "Paul E. McKenney" 
> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:13:57PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> >>> I think it is wrong to unconditionally take the lock before calling
> >>> atomic_dec_and_test() in _atomic_dec_and_lock(). This will deadlock in
> >>> situation where it is known that the counter will not reach zero (e.g. 
> >>> holding
> >>> another reference to the same object) but the lock is already taken.
> >>
> >> The thought of calling _atomic_dec_and_lock() when you already hold the
> >> lock really really scares me.
> >>
> >> Could you please give an example where you need to do this?
> >>
> >
> > There is a part of the union mount patches that needs to do a union_put() 
> > (which itself includes a path_put() that uses atomic_dec_and_lock() in 
> > mntput() ). Since it is changing the namespace I need to hold the vfsmount 
> > lock. I know that the mnt's count > 1 since it is a parent of the mnt I'm 
> > changing in the mount tree. I could possibly delay the union_put().
> >
> > In general this let's atomic_dec_and_lock() behave similar on SMP and UP. 
> > Remember that this already works with CONFIG_SMP as before Nick's patch.
> 
> I asked, I guess.  ;-)
> 
> There is some sort of common code path, so that you cannot simply call
> atomic_dec() when holding the lock?

If it is possible I don't want to introduce another special mntput() variant
just for that code path.

Thanks,
Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/