[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070626120241.GA173@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:02:41 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Uli Luckas <u.luckas@...d.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] PM: Prevent frozen user mode helpers from failing the freezing of tasks (rev. 2)
On 06/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 25 June 2007 23:55, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
> > > case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
> > > usermodehelper_disabled = 1;
> > > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > + smp_mb();
> >
> > usermodehelper_disabled should be atomic variable, too, so we don't
> > have to play these ugly tricks by hand? This should not be
> > performance-critical, right?
>
> Well, I think we'd need to add the barriers anyway.
>
> The problem, as far as I understand it, is that the instructions can get
> reordered if there are no barriers in there.
Yes, and it doesn't help if we make usermodehelper_disabled atomic_t.
atomic_xxx() operations do not imply the memory barrier semantics.
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