[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294338395.2016.381.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:26:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] spinlock: Kill spin_unlock_wait()
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 21:38 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I can't see how the usage in libata could be right. If we're waiting
> for some modifications inside the critical section, then it seems we
> could load some shared data before the lock is actually released, on
> an architecture which does load/load reordering. At best it needs some
> good comments and perhaps a barrier or two.
>
> The spin_unlock_wait in do_exit seems like it shouldn't be needed --
> exit_pi_state_list takes the pi_lock after the task has died anyway,
> so I can't see what the problem would be. Removing the call (and
> perhaps put a BUG_ON(!(curr->flags & PF_EXITING)) in exit_pi_state_list
> would do the same thing, avoid the barrier, and localize fuxtex exit
> protocol to futex.c.
Jeff, Tejun, could you look at the ata-eh thing, then I'll put sorting
through the futex thing on my todo list.
--
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