From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 05:35:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB5170E4AA9CBA36BDC87A3F43E4C50@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9876d04e-32c9-dcaa-545a-bfecbf07ea74@redhat.com>
On 4/5/20 4:42 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/3/20 10:28 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:02 PM Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> So in term of priority, my current thinking is
>>>
>>> upgrading unfair reader > unfair reader > reader/writer
>>>
>>> A higher priority locker will block other lockers from acquiring the lock.
>> An alternative option might be to have readers normally be 100% normal
>> (ie with fairness wrt writers), and not really introduce any special
>> "unfair reader" lock.
> A regular down_read() caller will be handled normally.
>> Instead, all the unfairness would come into play only when the special
>> case - execve() - does it's special "lock for reading with intent to
>> upgrade".
>>
>> But when it enters that kind of "intent to upgrade" lock state, it
>> would not only block all subsequent writers, it would also guarantee
>> that all other readers can continue to go).
>
> Yes, that shouldn't be hard to do. If that is what is required, we may
> only need a special upgrade function to drain the OSQ and then wake up
> all the readers in the wait queue. I will add a flags argument to that
> special upgrade function so that we may be able to select different
> behavior in the future.
>
> The regular down_read_interruptible() can be used unless we want to
> designate only some readers are allowed to do upgrade by calling a
> special down_read() function.
>>
>> So then the new rwsem operations would be
>>
>> - read_with_write_intent_lock_interruptible()
>>
>> This is the beginning of "execve()", and waits for all writers to
>> exit, and puts the lock into "all readers can go" mode.
>>
>> You could think of it as a "I'm queuing myself for a write lock,
>> but I'm allowing readers to go ahead" state.
>>
>> - read_lock_to_write_upgrade()
>>
>> This is the "now this turns into a regular write lock". It needs to
>> wait for all other readers to exit, of course.
>>
>> - read_with_write_intent_unlock()
>>
>> This is the "I'm unqueuing myself, I aborted and will not become a
>> write lock after all" operation.
>>
>> NOTE! In this model, there may be multiple threads that do that
>> initial queuing thing. We only guarantee that only one of them will
>> get to the actual write lock stage, and the others will abort before
>> that happens.
>>
>> If that is a more natural state machine, then that should work fine
>> too. And it has some advantages, in that it keeps the readers normally
>> fair, and only turns them unfair when we get to that special
>> read-for-write stage.
>>
>> But whatever it most natural for the rwsem code. Entirely up to you.
>
> To be symmetric with the existing downgrade_write() function, I will
> choose the name upgrade_read() for the upgrade function.
>
> Will that work for you?
>
May I ask, if the proposed rwsem will also work for RT-linux,
or will it be a normal mutex there?
Thanks
Bernd.
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-05 3:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 127+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87blobnq02.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
2020-04-02 19:04 ` [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1 Linus Torvalds
2020-04-02 19:31 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-02 20:59 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-02 21:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-02 23:01 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-02 23:42 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-02 23:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-02 23:49 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-02 23:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-02 23:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-03 0:05 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 1:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] exec_update_mutex related cleanups Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 1:31 ` [PATCH 1/3] binfmt: Move install_exec_creds after setup_new_exec to match binfmt_elf Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 15:58 ` Kees Cook
2020-04-07 16:11 ` Christian Brauner
2020-04-08 17:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-08 19:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 1:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] exec: Make unlocking exec_update_mutex explict Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 16:02 ` Kees Cook
2020-04-07 16:17 ` Christian Brauner
2020-04-07 16:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 1:32 ` [PATCH 3/3] exec: Rename the flag called_exec_mmap point_of_no_return Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 16:03 ` Kees Cook
2020-04-07 16:21 ` Christian Brauner
2020-04-07 16:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] exec_update_mutex related cleanups Christian Brauner
2020-04-08 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-03 5:09 ` [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1 Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-03 19:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-03 20:41 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-03 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-03 23:16 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-03 23:23 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-04 1:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-04 2:02 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-04 2:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-04 6:34 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-05 6:34 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-05 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-05 2:42 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-05 3:35 ` Bernd Edlinger [this message]
2020-04-05 3:45 ` Waiman Long
2020-04-06 13:13 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-04 4:23 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-06 22:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-07 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-07 20:29 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-07 20:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-08 15:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-08 15:21 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-08 16:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 14:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-09 15:15 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 17:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-09 17:17 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 17:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 17:46 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 19:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 19:57 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 20:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 20:36 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 21:00 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-09 21:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 23:52 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-10 0:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-10 0:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-11 4:07 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-11 18:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-04-11 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-11 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-11 19:15 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-11 20:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-11 21:16 ` Bernd Edlinger
[not found] ` <CAHk-=wgWHkBzFazWJj57emHPd3Dg9SZHaZqoO7-AD+UbBTJgig@mail.gmail.com>
2020-04-11 21:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-12 6:01 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-12 19:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-04-12 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-28 2:56 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-28 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-28 19:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-04-28 20:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-28 21:06 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-28 21:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-28 21:53 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-28 22:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-28 23:36 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-29 17:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-29 18:33 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-29 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-29 19:23 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-29 19:26 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-29 20:19 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-29 21:06 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-29 22:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-29 23:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-29 23:59 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-30 1:08 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-30 2:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 3:00 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-30 3:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 3:41 ` Jann Horn
2020-04-30 3:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 13:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 2:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 13:39 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-30 13:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-30 14:29 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-30 16:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-02 4:11 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-09 17:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-09 20:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-09 20:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-02 23:02 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-02 23:22 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-03 7:38 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-03 16:00 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-03 15:09 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-03 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-03 16:36 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-04 5:43 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-04 5:48 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-06 6:41 ` Bernd Edlinger
2020-04-10 13:03 ` [GIT PULL] proc fix " Eric W. Biederman
2020-04-10 20:40 ` pr-tracker-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM6PR03MB5170E4AA9CBA36BDC87A3F43E4C50@AM6PR03MB5170.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com \
--to=bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gladkov.alexey@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).