[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090416143351.GD6532@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:33:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, serue@...ibm.com, steved@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Daire.Byrne@...mestore.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait
On 04/16, David Howells wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if slow_work_cull_timeout() should have some sort of barrier,
> > so the write is suitably visible to the woken thread.
>
> That's an interesting question. Should wake_up() imply a barrier of any sort,
> I wonder. Well, __wake_up() does impose a barrier as it uses a spinlock, but
> I wonder if that's sufficient.
wake_up() does imply the barrier. Note the smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up().
And in fact this wmb() implies mb(), because spin_lock() itself is STORE,
and the futher LOADs can't leak up before spin_lock().
But afaics, this doesn't matter? prepare_to_wait() sets task->state under
wait_queue_head_t->lock and wake_up() takes this look too, so we can't miss
the event.
Or I completely misunderstood the issue...
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