From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933860AbbHDNKq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:10:46 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:59691 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933269AbbHDNKp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:10:45 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:10:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: qrwlock && read-after-read
Message-ID: <20150804131036.GQ25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150804130053.GA22608@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150804130053.GA22608@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:00:53PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I am working on the (off-topic) bug report which motivated me to
> look at locking/qrwlock.c and it seems to me there is a problem
> with the queued rwlocks.
> 
> Unless I am totally confused read-after-read is no longer valid,
> write_lock() stops the new readers. And lockdep doesn't know this,
> read_lock()->rwlock_acquire_read() doesn't match the reality. The
> code doing
> 
> 	read_lock(X);
> 	read_lock(X);
> 
> can deadlock if another CPU does write_lock(X) in between. This
> was fine before rwlock_t was changed to use qrwlock.
> 
> A nested read_lock() in interrupt should be fine though, and this
> is because queue_read_lock_slowpath() "ignores" _QW_WAITING if
> in_interrupt().
> 
> This means that rwlock_t has the really strange semantics imho,
> and again, it is not lockdep-friendly.
> 
> What do you think we can/should do? Or did I misread this code?

Fix lockdep, although that's non trivial from what I remember.

These (new) semantics were very much on purpose and suggested by Linus
IIRC.