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 S932992AbbDISQ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:16:28 -0400
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:37466 "EHLO
	mail-ig0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753969AbbDISQZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 9 Apr 2015 14:16:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzXMDjQQ7jTjsPdh1RikXfgV7OCd-+13cz06MOmDBA33w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1428521960-5268-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
	<1428521960-5268-3-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com>
	<20150409053725.GB13871@gmail.com>
	<1428561611.3506.78.camel@j-VirtualBox>
	<20150409075311.GA4645@gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFz6KKxGVxPAbsmw9GsKJfy85P2C0EmYBrGpn+aJDjZJWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150409175652.GI6464@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<CA+55aFzXMDjQQ7jTjsPdh1RikXfgV7OCd-+13cz06MOmDBA33w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 11:16:24 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uNqxx_PtA9_5SQvzxy_UAQw4pFo
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwZWi6ecDmVsMBQJTrgrW3GD2DaRtpiOspe=5amR1=dNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner()
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> The pointer is a known-safe kernel pointer - it's just that it was
> "known safe" a few instructions ago, and might be rcu-free'd at any
> time.

Actually, we could even do something like this:

 static inline int sem_owner_on_cpu(struct semaphore *sem, struct
task_struct *owner)
 {
        int on_cpu;

    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
        rcu_read_lock();
    #endif
        on_cpu = sem->owner == owner && owner->on_cpu;
    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
        rcu_read_unlock();
    #endif
        return on_cpu;
    }

because we really don't need to hold the RCU lock over the whole loop,
we just need to validate that the semaphore owner still matches, and
if so, check that it's on_cpu.

And if CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is set, we don't care about performance
*at*all*. We will have worse performance problems than doing some RCU
read-locking inside the loop.

And if CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC isn't set, we don't really care about
locking, since at worst we just access stale memory for one iteration.

Hmm. It's not pretty, but neither is the current "let's just take a
rcu lock that we don't really need over a loop that doesn't have very
strict bounding".

Comments?

                                    Linus