[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070104143856.GB179@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:38:56 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
On 01/04, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 01:34:16AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > void fastcall flush_workqueue(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> > {
> > - might_sleep();
> > -
> > + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > if (is_single_threaded(wq)) {
> > /* Always use first cpu's area. */
> > - flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, singlethread_cpu),
> > - -1);
> > + flush_cpu_workqueue(per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, singlethread_cpu));
> > } else {
> > int cpu;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>
>
> Can compiler optimizations lead to cpu_online_map being cached in a register
> while running this loop? AFAICS cpu_online_map is not declared to be
> volatile.
But it is not const either,
> If it can be cached,
I believe this would be a compiler's bug. Let's take a more simple example,
while (!condition)
schedule();
What if compiler will cache the value of global 'condition' ?
then we have the danger of invoking
> flush_cpu_workqueue() on a dead cpu (because flush_cpu_workqueue drops
> workqueue_mutex, cpu hp events can change cpu_online_map while we are in
> flush_cpu_workqueue).
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists