From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S946603AbdDTQCG (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:02:06 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60455 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S946587AbdDTQCD (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:02:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:01:33 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Laurent Dufour Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mhocko@suse.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking: Introduce range reader/writer lock Message-ID: <20170420155125.GA20746@linux-80c1.suse> References: <20170406084620.22700-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20170406084620.22700-3-dave@stgolabs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 Apr 2017, Laurent Dufour wrote: >On 06/04/2017 10:46, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >> +__range_read_lock_common(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree, >> + struct range_rwlock *lock, long state) >> +{ >> + struct interval_tree_node *node; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tree->lock, flags); >> + range_lock_set_reader(lock); >> + >> + if (!__range_intersects_intree(tree, lock)) >> + goto insert; >> + >> + range_interval_tree_foreach(node, &tree->root, >> + lock->node.start, lock->node.last) { >> + struct range_rwlock *blocked_lock; >> + blocked_lock = range_entry(node, struct range_rwlock, node); >> + >> + if (!range_lock_is_reader(blocked_lock)) >> + lock->blocking_ranges++; >> + } >> +insert: >> + __range_tree_insert(tree, lock); >> + >> + lock->waiter = current; > >Hi Davidlohr, > >Setting lock->waiter after calling range_lock_set_reader() is resetting >the reader flag. Moving the call to range_lock_set_reader() here fixes that. Yeah, I moved the set_reader() call to after setting lock->waiter. > >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tree->lock, flags); >> + >> + return wait_for_ranges(tree, lock, state); >> +} [...] >> +int range_read_trylock(struct range_rwlock_tree *tree, struct range_rwlock *lock) >> +{ >> + int ret = true; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + struct interval_tree_node *node; >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tree->lock, flags); >> + >> + if (!__range_intersects_intree(tree, lock)) >> + goto insert; >> + >> + /* >> + * We have overlapping ranges in the tree, ensure that we can >> + * in fact share the lock. >> + */ >> + range_interval_tree_foreach(node, &tree->root, >> + lock->node.start, lock->node.last) { >> + struct range_rwlock *blocked_lock; >> + blocked_lock = range_entry(node, struct range_rwlock, node); >> + >> + if (!range_lock_is_reader(blocked_lock)) { >> + ret = false; >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + } >> +insert: >> + range_lock_set_reader(lock); > >Here, the lock->waiter field should have been set to current before >calling range_lock_set_reader() But this is a trylock attempt, there is no waiting going on. Thanks, Davidlohr