[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTiknfeTj6GD0t-ekMoaS1QYQBVyBjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:02:45 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: freezer: should barriers be smp ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 16:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> when we suspend/resume Blackfin SMP systems, we notice that the
>> freezer code runs on multiple cores. this is of course what you want
>> -- freeze processes in parallel. however, the code only uses non-smp
>> based barriers which causes us problems ... our cores need software
>> support to keep caches in sync, so our smp barriers do just that. but
>> the non-smp barriers do not, and so the frozen/thawed processes
>> randomly get stuck in the wrong task state.
>>
>> thinking about it, shouldnt the freezer code be using smp barriers ?
>
> Yes, it should, but rmb() and wmb() are supposed to be SMP barriers.
>
> Or do you mean something different?
then what's the diff between smp_rmb() and rmb() ?
this is what i'm proposing:
--- a/kernel/freezer.c
+++ b/kernel/freezer.c
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ static inline void frozen_process(void)
{
if (!unlikely(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
current->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
- wmb();
+ smp_wmb();
}
clear_freeze_flag(current);
}
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p, bool sig_only)
* the task as frozen and next clears its TIF_FREEZE.
*/
if (!freezing(p)) {
- rmb();
+ smp_rmb();
if (frozen(p))
return false;
-mike
--
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