[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:10:38 -0500
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATH -mm -v2] Fix a race condtion of oops_in_progress
Huang Ying wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 15:35 +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>>> As far as I know, barriers don't cause changes to be visible on other
>>>>> CPUs faster too. It just guarantees corresponding operations after will
>>>>> not get executed until that before have finished. And, I don't think we
>>>>> need make changes to be visible on other CPUs faster.
>>>> You're correct that barrier() has no impact on other CPUs. wmb() and rmb() do.
>>>> If we don't need to make changes visible any faster, what's the point in using
>>>> atomic_set()? It's not any less racy. atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() would be
>>>> less racy, but you're not using those.
>>> In default bust_spinlocks() implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c,
>>> atomic_inc() and atomic_dec_and_test() is used. Which is used by x86
>>> too. In some other architecture, atomic_set() is used to replace
>>> "oops_in_progress = <xxx>". So this patch fixes architectures which use
>>> default bust_spinlocks(), other architectures can be fixed by
>>> corresponding architecture developers.
>> I think Chris is right.
>> So, I reccomend to read Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>>
>> Almost architecture gurantee atomic_inc cause barrier implicitly.
>> but not _all_ architecture.
>
> Yes. atomic_inc() doesn't imply barrier on all architecture. But we
> should not add barriers before all atomic_inc(), just ones needed. Can
> you figure out which ones in the patch should has barrier added?
You need barriers *after* writes, and *before* reads. Adding barriers to the
oops path should be extremely cheap for performance, unless oopsing is a common
occurrence, in which case we have bigger problems.
-- Chris
--
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