[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120713094232.GD18079@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:42:32 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: shan kang <kangshan0910@...il.com>
Cc: Li Haifeng <omycle@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: ARM: why smp_mb() is not needed in the "__mutex_fastpath_lock"
and "__mutex_fastpath_unlock" functions
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:10:52AM +0100, shan kang wrote:
> For example, in the following scenario, Process2 may get the wrong value;
> Process1:
> mutex_lock(&lock);
> write data; (store operation)
> mutex_unlock(&lock);
>
> Process2:
> mutex_lock(&lock);
> read data; (load operation)
> mutex_unlock(&lock);
Yes, it looks like we can screw things up in the uncontended case (where
nobody blocks on the mutex). We could add an smp_mb after the lock operation
and another one before the unlock, but I'm tempted just to use
asm-generic/mutex-dec.h instead. The latter approach will subtly change the
current behaviour, so I'll post a patch when I'm happy with it.
Curious: did you find this by inspection or did you observe it going wrong?
Cheers,
Will
--
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