[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070703174503.GB108@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:45:03 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 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 07/03, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 00:27 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki 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.
>
> That seems dodgy either way to me :-)
>
> Just use a spinlock.
Actually, spinlock_t is not suitable. Because spin_unlcok() does NOT imply
mb(). The subsequent wait_event_timeout()->atomic_read() may leak into the
critical section.
We can use set_mb(), if we don't want to play with smp_mb() by hand :)
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