[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1316115308.4060.21.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:35:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] ipc/sem: Rework wakeup scheme
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 21:32 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > +static void wake_up_sem_queue_prepare(struct wake_list_head *wake_list,
> > > struct sem_queue *q, int error)
> > > {
> > > + struct task_struct *p = ACCESS_ONCE(q->sleeper);
> > >
> > > + get_task_struct(p);
> > > + q->status = error;
> > > + /*
> > > + * implies a full barrier
> > > + */
> > > + wake_list_add(wake_list, p);
> > > + put_task_struct(p);
> > > }
>
> > I think the get_task_struct()/put_task_struct is not necessary:
> > Just do the wake_list_add() before writing q->status:
> > wake_list_add() is identical to list_add_tail(&q->simple_list, pt).
> > [except that it contains additional locking, which doesn't matter here]
OK, I can't read properly.. so the problem with doing the
wake_list_add() before the write is that the wakeup can actually happen
before the write in case p already had a wakeup queued.
So far there isn't anybody else (except futexes) using this that could
intersect with the wakeups.. but still it leaves me uneasy.
--
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