Re: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@codeaurora.org>
wrote:

> Have you observed this type of issues with tasklist_lock ?

tasklist_lock remains pretty painful. It covers too much, but trying to
split it up has never worked well.

It's usually not a huge problem because there are so few writers, but what
you're seeing is the writer starvation issue because readers can be
plentiful.

> Do we need write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) in below portion of code ? Can
> I use write_unlock instead of write_lock_irq in portion of code?

You absolutely need write_lock_irq(), because taking the tasklist_lock
without disabling interrupts will deadlock very quickly due to an interrupt
taking the tasklist_lock for reading.

That said, the write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) could possibly be replaced
with something like

   static void tasklist_write_lock(void)
   {
         unsigned long flags;
         local_irq_save(flags);
         while (!write_trylock(&tasklist_lock)) {
                 local_irq_restore(flags);
                 do { cpu_relax(); } while (write_islocked(&tasklist_lock));
                 local_irq_disable();
         }
   }

but we don't have that "write_islocked()" function.

So the above would need more work, and is entirely untested anyway,
obviously.

                 Linus