Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwsem: Drop superfluous waiter refcount

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:51:18AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> >>>So I think you're wrong here; imagine this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>	rwsem_down_read_failed()			rwsem_wake()
> >>>	  get_task_struct();
> >>>	  raw_spin_lock_irq(&wait_lock);
> >>>	  list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &wait_list);
> >>>	  raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wait_lock);
> >>>							  raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&wait_lock)
> >>>							  __rwsem_do_wake()
> >>>	  while (true) {
> >>>	    set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> >>>							    waiter->task = NULL
> >>>	    if (!waiter.task) // true
> >>>	      break;
> >>>
> >>>	  __set_task_state(tsk, TASK_RUNNING);
> >>>
> >>>	do_exit();
> >>>							    wake_up_process(tsk); /* BOOM */
> >>
> >>I may be missing something, but rwsem_down_read_failed() will not return until
> >>after the wakeup is done by the rwsem_wake() thread.
> >
> >The above never gets to schedule(), and even if it did, a spurious
> >wakeup could've happened, no?
> 
> Ah indeed, you are most certainly correct. For some reason  I was always
> considering schedule() in the picture. Hmm I'll have to think about this
> some more, but given the small chance of a waiter actually seeing the nil
> task at the first iteration I'm wondering if we could just invert the code
> and call schedule() before the task check. Saving the refcounts will serve
> _all_ reader waiters otoh, but this would obviously need numbers...

So with where you're going -- using wake_q, it naturally goes away if
you do:

	wake_q_add(&wake_q, tsk);
	smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);

Because the wake_q already takes a task ref, and we'll not actually
issue the wakeup until after the waiter->task store.