linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH for-3.3] mempool: clean up and document synchronization and memory barrier usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:57:14 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-3.3] mempool: clean up and document synchronization
	and memory barrier usage

On 12/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 12/20, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, mempool_alloc() is already holding pool->lock when it
> > decides that it needs to wait.  There is no reason to do unlock - add
> > waitqueue - test condition again.  It can simply add itself to
> > waitqueue while holding pool->lock and then unlock and sleep.
>
> Confused. I agree, we can hold pool->lock until schedule(). But, at
> the same time, why should we hold it?

Ah, I see.

> Or I missed the reason why we must not unlock before prepare_to_wait?

I didn't notice that this removes another "if (!pool->curr_nr)" check.

Oleg.

--
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/