[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162803471.28571.303.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:57:51 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH? hrtimer_wakeup: fix a theoretical race wrt
rt_mutex_slowlock()
> Yes. On x86 (and x86-64) you'll never see this, because writes are always
> seen in order regardless, and in addition, the spin_lock is actually
> totally serializing anyway. On most other architectures, the spin_lock
> will serialize all the writes too, but it's not guaranteed, so in theory
> you're right. I suspect no actual architecture will do this, but hey,
> when talking memory ordering, safe is a lot better than sorry.
PowerPC doesn't serialize the writes on spin_lock, only on spin_unlock.
(That is, previous writes can "leak" into the lock, but writes done
before the unlock can't leak out of the spinlock).
Now, I've just glanced at the thread, so I don't know if that's relevant
to the problems you guys are talking about :-)
Ben.
-
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