Commit ce36f2f3 authored by Oleg Nesterov's avatar Oleg Nesterov Committed by Paul E. McKenney

rcu: More info about potential deadlocks with rcu_read_unlock()

The comment above rcu_read_unlock() explains the potential deadlock
if the caller holds one of the locks taken by rt_mutex_unlock() paths,
but it is not clear from this documentation that any lock which can
be taken from interrupt can lead to deadlock as well and we need to
take rt_mutex_lock() into account too.

The problem is that rt_mutex_lock() takes wait_lock without disabling
irqs, and thus an interrupt taking some LOCK can obviously race with
rcu_read_unlock_special() called with the same LOCK held.
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent b6331ae8
......@@ -887,7 +887,9 @@ static inline void rcu_read_lock(void)
* Unfortunately, this function acquires the scheduler's runqueue and
* priority-inheritance spinlocks. This means that deadlock could result
* if the caller of rcu_read_unlock() already holds one of these locks or
* any lock that is ever acquired while holding them.
* any lock that is ever acquired while holding them; or any lock which
* can be taken from interrupt context because rcu_boost()->rt_mutex_lock()
* does not disable irqs while taking ->wait_lock.
*
* That said, RCU readers are never priority boosted unless they were
* preempted. Therefore, one way to avoid deadlock is to make sure
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment