This is a discussion on Re: rwlocks, correctness over speed. - FreeBSD ; * Robert Watson [071123 16:27] wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > > >>>I talked with Attilio about that on IRC. Most common cases of writer > >>>starvation (but not all) could be solved by ...
* Robert Watson
[071123 16:27] wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> >>>I talked with Attilio about that on IRC. Most common cases of writer
> >>>starvation (but not all) could be solved by keeping a per thread count
> >>>of shared acquired rwlocks. If a rwlock is currently locked as
> >>>shared/read AND a thread is blocked on it to lock it exclusively/write -
> >>>then new shared/read locks will only be granted to thread that already
> >>>has a shared lock. (per thread shared counter is non zero)
> >>>To be honest I am a bit twitchy about a lock without priority
> >>>propagation - especially since in FreeBSD threads run with user priority
> >>>in kernel space and can get preempted.
> >>That's an interesting hack, I guess it could be done.
> >>I would still like to disallow recursion.
> >Oh - I am all for disallowing recursion. In my opinion the only valid
> >place for a thread to acquire the same lock multiple times is inside a
> >transaction system with full deadlock detection. The question is if we can
> >do that this late in the game? Maybe we could make non recursive the
> >default and add a call rw_allow_recurse or rw_init_recurse to allow
> >recursion on a lock if we can't get away with the straight out removal of
> >the option? (Or less desirable - keep the current default and add
> >functions to disallow recursion)
> While I'm no great fan of recursion, the reality is that many of our kernel
> subsystems are not yet ready to disallow recursion on locks. Take a look
> at the cases where we explicitly enable recursive acquisition for
> mutexes--in practice, most network stack mutexes are recursive due to the
> recursive calling in the network stack. While someday I'd like to think
> we'll be able to eliminate some of that, but it won't be soon since it
> requires significant reworking of very complicated code. The current model
> in which recursion is explicitly enabled only where still required seems to
> work pretty well for the existing code, although it's hard to say yet in
> the code I've looked at whether read recursion would be required--the
> situations I have in mind would require purely write recursion. There's
> one case in the UNIX domain socket code where we do a locked test and
> conditional lock/unlock with an rwlock for exclusive locking because
> recursion isn't currently supported, and that's not a usage I'd like to
> encourage more of.
Yes that's all well and good, however we have to come to a consensus
on whether to bite the bullet and implement recursion tracking on
rwlocks or disallow it, because unless we do this, we open the system
up to starvation live-lock.
So let's make a decision about it instead of just talking about it.
- Alfred Perlstein
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "firstname.lastname@example.org"