On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static inline void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore
> *sem)
> {
> long tmp;
>
> - tmp = atomic_long_add_return(-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> + tmp = atomic_long_add_return_acquire(-RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS,
> (atomic_long_t *)&sem->count);
> if (tmp < 0)
> rwsem_downgrade_wake(sem);
Careful. I'm pretty sure this is wrong.
When we downgrade exclusive ownership to non-exclusive, that should be
a *release* operation. Anything we did inside the write-locked region
had damn better _stay_ inside the write-locked region, we can not
allow it to escape down into the read-locked side. So it needs to be
at least a release.
In contrast, anything that we do in the read-locked part is fine to be
re-ordered into the write-locked exclusive part, so it does *not* need
acquire ordering (the original write locking obviously did use
acquire, and acts as a barrier for everything that comes in the locked
region).
I tried to look through everything, and I think this is the only thing
you got wrong, but I'd like somebody to double-checks. Getting the
acquire/release semantics wrong will cause some really really subtle
and hard-as-hell-to-find bugs. So let's be careful out there, ok?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
