[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0611191606580.20262-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:09:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
<manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > What happens if synchronize_xxx manages to execute inbetween
> > xxx_read_lock's
> >
> > idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
> > atomic_inc(sp->ctr + idx);
> >
> > statements?
>
> Oops. I forgot about explicit mb() before sp->completed++ in synchronize_xxx().
>
> So synchronize_xxx() should do
>
> smp_mb();
> idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
>
> for (;;) { ... }
>
> > You see, there's no way around using synchronize_sched().
>
> With this change I think we are safe.
>
> If synchronize_xxx() increments ->completed in between, the caller of
> xxx_read_lock() will see all memory ops (started before synchronize_xxx())
> completed. It is ok that synchronize_xxx() returns immediately.
Yes, the reader will see a consistent picture, but it will have
incremented the wrong element of sp->ctr[]. What happens if another
synchronize_xxx() occurs while the reader is still running?
Alan
-
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