[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263495132.28171.3861.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:52:12 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, josh@...htriplett.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory
barrier (v5)
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 13:37 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> To make this painfully clear, I'll reorder the accesses to match that of
> the CPU to memory:
>
> CPU 0 (membarrier) CPU 1 (another mm -our mm)
> <user-space>
> <kernel-space>
> switch_mm()
> smp_mb()
> clear_mm_cpumask()
> set_mm_cpumask()
> smp_mb() (by load_cr3() on x86)
> switch_to()
> <buffered current = next>
> <switch back to user-space>
> urcu read lock()
> access critical section data (3)
> memory access before membarrier
> <call sys_membarrier()>
> smp_mb()
> mm_cpumask includes CPU 1
> rcu_read_lock()
> if (CPU 1 mm != our mm)
> skip CPU 1.
I still don't see how the above conditional fails?
-- Steve
> rcu_read_unlock()
> smp_mb()
> <return to user-space>
> memory access after membarrier
> current = next (1) (buffer flush)
> read gp
> store local gp (2)
>
> This should make the problem a bit more evident. Access (3) is done
> outside of the read-side C.S. as far as the userspace synchronize_rcu()
> is concerned.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
--
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