[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A38A719.2030709@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:19:37 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: cl@...ux-foundation.org
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx 01/11] Introduce this_cpu_ptr() and generic this_cpu_*
operations
Hello,
cl@...ux-foundation.org wrote:
> +#ifndef this_cpu_write
> +# define this_cpu_write(pcp, val) __this_cpu_write((pcp), (val))
> +#endif
Is this safe? Write itself would always be atomic but this means that
a percpu variable may change its value while a thread is holding the
processor by disabling preemption. ie,
0. v contains A for cpu0
1. task0 on cpu0 does this_cpu_write(v, B), looks up cpu but gets
preemted out.
2. task1 gets scheduled on cpu1, disables preemption and does
__this_cpu_read(v) and gets A and goes on with preemtion disabled.
3. task0 gets scheduled on cpu1 and executes the assignment.
4. task1 does __this_cpu_read(v) again and oops gets B this time.
Please note that this can also happen between addition or other
modifying ops and cause incorrect result.
Also, these macros depricate percpu_OP() macros, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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