[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090626135742.GB3845@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:57:42 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
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 06/25, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> Not all the code that uses add_wait_queue() does need to have the MB,
> like code that does the most common pattern:
>
> xxx_poll(...) {
> poll_wait(...);
> lock();
> flags = calc_flags(->status);
> unlock();
> return flags;
> }
>
> xxx_update(...) {
> lock();
> ->status = ...;
> unlock();
> if (waitqueue_active())
> wake_up();
> }
>
> It's the code that does the lockless flags calculation in ->poll that
> might need it.
And if we remove waitqueue_active() in xxx_update(), then lock/unlock is
not needed too.
If xxx_poll() takes q->lock first, it can safely miss the changes in ->status
and schedule(): xxx_update() will take q->lock, notice the sleeper and wake
it up (ok, it will set ->triggered but this doesn't matter).
If xxx_update() takes q->lock first, xxx_poll() must see the changes in
status after poll_wait()->unlock(&q->lock) (in fact, after lock, not unlock).
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