[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081112115804.GA3444@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:58:04 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] workqueues: turn queue_work() into the "barrier"
for work->func()
On 11/11, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the caller of queue_work() has all rights to expect that
> > the next invocation of work_func() must see "VAR == 1", but this
> > is not true if the work is already pending.
>
> As you said, queue_work() does test_and_set_bit() which implies smp_mb()
> either side of the function, so you're half way there, and run_workqueue()
> calls spin_unlock_irq() just before calling work_clear_pending()... So might
> it make sense to move the work_clear_pending() into locked section? Or would
> that require an smp_mb__before_clear_bit()?
This can't really help, afaics. We still need mb() between clear_bit(_PENDING)
and LOAD(VAR). Because unlock() is the "one way" barrier, LOAD(VAR) can leak
into the critical section, and it can be re-ordered with clear_bit() inside
the critical section.
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