From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:60798 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752021AbeEORzW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 15 May 2018 13:55:22 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:55:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] locking/rwsem: Add a new RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY_OWNED
 flag
Message-ID: <20180515175514.GM12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1526405884-4860-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <1526405884-4860-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20180515174837.GL12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <4d823d09-b41c-2f86-40b7-f110bf30afd8@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4d823d09-b41c-2f86-40b7-f110bf30afd8@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:52:06PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/15/2018 01:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:38:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> >> index 30465a2..b7208e1 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem.c
> >> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ void up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> >>  void up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> >>  {
> >>  	rwsem_release(&sem->dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
> >> -	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != current);
> >> +	DEBUG_RWSEMS_WARN_ON((sem->owner != current) &&
> >> +			     !rwsem_has_anonymous_owner(sem->owner));
> > Why? Don't we always do percpu_rwsem_acquire() before up?
> >
> 
> This is to allow an unlock to happen in the unknown owner state. Yes, it
> is not necessary to fix the percpu-rwsem problem. It is there just in
> case a rwsem will be released in that state in the future.

Let's not allow that until there's a very good reason for it.