[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120206161802.GC31237@aftab>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:18:02 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
bp@...64.org, tony.luck@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
marcos.mage@...il.com, prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix rcu splat in drain_mce_log_buffer()
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:44:35PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Looks good to me, but I do need to defer to people who know this code
> better than do I. The key thing that (from what I can see) makes
> rcu_dereference() unnecessary is that the smp_rmb() used in conjunction
> with polling the .finished field takes care of ordering.
Right, this was me trying hard not to screw up touching mcelog.next,
thus trying to use the rcu_dereference_index_check() primitive without
thinking it through too much. But you're right, I'm polling the
->finished field 4 times (totally arbitrary, btw) which should suffice
while the mce_log() routine above writes those entries.
Although, the question still remains, since mce_log() accesses
mcelog.next through the rcu_dereference_index_check() primitive,
shouldn't I do it the same way?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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