[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090626134643.GA3845@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:46:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select
On 06/26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> >
> > Do you think of it as good design adding an MB on a subsystem, because of
> > the special locking logic of another one?
> > The (eventual) slowdown, IMO can be argued sideways, by saying that
> > non-socket users will pay the price for their polls.
>
> I wont argue with you David, just try to correct bugs.
I must admit, I agree with David.
> fs/ext4/ioctl.c line 182
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> add_wait_queue(&EXT4_SB(sb)->ro_wait_queue, &wait);
> if (timer_pending(&EXT4_SB(sb)->turn_ro_timer)) {
> schedule();
>
> Another example of missing barrier after add_wait_queue()
Assuming that ->turn_ro_timer does wake_up(->ro_wait_queue) everything
is OK, we do not need a barrier.
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