[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1262883604.28171.3733.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:00:04 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:49 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If the task->rq changes, or the task->rq->curr changes, and makes the
> > condition fail (or even pass), the events that cause those changes are
> > probably good enough than needing to call smp_mb();
>
> This narrows the fatal window, but does not eliminate it. :-(
>
> The CPU doing the sys_membarrier() might see an old value of ->curr,
> and the other CPU might see an old value of whatever pointer we are
> trying to recycle. This combination is fatal.
But for curr to change, the rq spin lock must have been held. Which
implies smp_wb(). I would think that if you do a smp_rb() wouldn't that
guarantee that you see the new value of curr?
-- Steve
--
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