[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080429131322.GB128@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:13:22 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul E McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: futex code and barriers
On 04/29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While looking through the futex code I stumbled upon the following bit:
>
> kernel/futex.c:
>
> /* add_wait_queue is the barrier after __set_current_state. */
As for me, the comment is very confusing at least.
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue(&q.waiters, &wait);
Not sure I understand this code, but probably it is correct.
Yes, add_wait_queue() is not a barrier, and both __set_current_state()
and the "!plist_node_empty()" check below can leak into the
add_wait_queue's critical section.
But wake_futex()->wake_up_all() has to lock/unlock the same q->lock,
so I think we can't miss the event.
IOW, when wake_futex()->wake_up_all() takes q->lock, it must see
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE.
If wake_futex() takes q->lock before us, we must see the result
of plist_del() after add_wait_queue() (more precisely, after
add_wait_queue()->spin_lock(q->lock).
But I'd like to know maintainer's opinion, I don't trust myself ;)
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