[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608020007350.10605@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 00:28:58 +0100 (BST)
From: Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Esben Nielsen <nielsen.esben@...glemail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [-rt] Fix race condition and following BUG in PI-futex
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 13:22 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> list_del_init(&pi_state->owner->pi_state_list);
>>>> list_add(&pi_state->list, &new_owner->pi_state_list);
>>>> pi_state->owner = new_owner;
>>>> + atomic_inc(&pi_state->refcount);
>>>
>>> There really needs to be a get_pi_state() or some variant. Having to do
>>> a manual atomic_inc is very dangerous.
>>
>> I understand the need to grab the wait_lock in order to serialize
>> rt_mutex_next_owner(), but why the addition of of the atomic_inc() and the
>> free_pi_state() ? And if we do need them, shouldn't we place them around the
>> use of the pi_state, rather than just before the unlock calls?
>
> Hmm, is the inc really needed? The hb->lock is held through this and
> the pi_state can't go away while that lock is held.
I was going to ask about that... If you say so they can go. I just added
the inc/dec to be sure.
Esben
>
> -- Steve
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists