[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B58B759.8000002@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:21:45 -0800
From: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To: rostedt@...dmis.org
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: Lots of bugs with current->state = TASK_*INTERRUPTIBLE
>>
>> This is what I thought.
>>
>> My cpu (Cavium Octeon) does not have out of order reads, so my wmb() is
>
> Can you have reads that are out of order wrt writes? Because the above
> does not have out of order reads. It just had a read that came before a
> write. The above code could look like:
>
> (hypothetical assembly language)
>
> ld r2, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> st r2, (current->state)
> wmb
> ld r1, (x)
> cmp r1, 0
>
> Is it possible for the CPU to do the load of r1 before storing r2? If
> so, then the bug still exists.
>
Indeed it is. Lockless operations make my head hurt.
Thanks for clarifying.
David Daney
> -- Steve
>
>
>> in fact a full mb() from the point of view of the current CPU. So I
>> think I could weaken my bariers in set_current_state() and still get
>> correct operation. However as you say...
>>
>
>
>
--
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