[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070219121236.GD91@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:12:36 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix refrigerator() vs thaw_process() race
On 02/19, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > refrigerator() can miss a wakeup, "wait event" loop needs a proper memory
> > ordering.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
> >
> > --- WQ/kernel/power/process.c~WAKE 2007-02-18 22:56:49.000000000 +0300
> > +++ WQ/kernel/power/process.c 2007-02-19 01:04:26.000000000 +0300
> > @@ -46,8 +46,10 @@ void refrigerator(void)
> > recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
> > spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
> >
> > - current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> > + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>
>
> Looks okay to me... but this one liner would be exactly as effective,
> right?
I think no, with this one liner we have
while (frozen(current)) {
// ------ WINDOW ------------
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();
}
What if thaw_process() happens in the window above?
We need the barrier exactly because LOAD (check condition) should not
come before STORE (set task->state).
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