linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061123214908.GB106@oleg>
Date:	Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:49:08 +0300
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On 11/23, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>                            For general use, I believe that this has
> difficulties with the sequence of events I sent out on November 20th, see:
> 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116397154808901&w=2
>
> ...
>
> I don't understand why an unlucky sequence of events mightn't be able
> to hang this __wait_event().  Suppose we did the atomic_dec_and_test(),
> then some other CPU executed xxx_read_unlock(), finding no one to awaken,
> then we execute the __wait_event()?

Please note how ->ctr[] is initialized,

	atomic_set(sp->ctr + 0, 1);	<---- 1, not 0
	atomic_set(sp->ctr + 1, 0);

atomic_read(sp->ctr + idx) == 0 means that this counter is inactive,
nobody use it.

Oleg.

-
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/