[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:36:19 +0100
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Heiko Carstens" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kernel Testers List" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #11989] Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop_machine
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> [ Cc:-ed workqueue/locking/suspend-race-condition experts. ]
Heh. I am not expert, but I looked at the code. The obvious suspicious
thing to see is the use of unpaired barriers? Maybe like this:
47 static void set_state(enum stopmachine_state newstate)
48 {
49 /* Reset ack counter. */
50 atomic_set(&thread_ack, num_threads);
51 smp_wmb();
+ /* force ordering between thread_ack/state */
52 state = newstate;
53 }
54
55 /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
56 static void ack_state(void)
57 {
58 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&thread_ack))
Maybe
+ /* force ordering between thread_ack/state */
+ smp_rmb();
here?
59 set_state(state + 1);
60 }
61
Or maybe I am wrong. But Documentation/memory-barriers.txt is rather
explicit on this point.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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