[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1192676235.12879.40.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:57:15 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier
>
> In general, I tend to think that for this function to make any sense
> (that is, to synchronize anything at all), it needs a barrier or you are
> just making a decision based on a totally random value of desc->status
> since it can have been re-ordered, speculatively loaded, pre-fetched,
> whatever'ed... :-).
Take a real life example:
drivers/message/fusion/mptbase.c
/* Disable interrupts! */
CHIPREG_WRITE32(&ioc->chip->IntMask, 0xFFFFFFFF);
ioc->active = 0;
synchronize_irq(pdev->irq);
And we aren't in a spinlock here.
That's just a random example grepped.... I think I see a few more. Then,
some drivers like tg3 actually do an smp_mb() before calling
synchronize_irq(). But then, some don't.
I think trying to have all drivers be correct here is asking for
trouble, we'd rather have synchronize_irq() be uber-safe. It's not like
it was used in hot path anyway.
Ben.
-
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