[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351614394.8467.110.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:26:34 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irq_work: Fix racy IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag setting
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag is set right before we execute the
> work. Once this flag value is set, the work enters a
> claimable state again.
>
> This is necessary because if we want to enqueue a work but we
> fail the claim, we want to ensure that the CPU where that work
> is still pending will see and handle the data we expected the
> work to compute.
>
> This might not work as expected though because IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> isn't set atomically. By the time a CPU fails a work claim,
> this work may well have been already executed by the CPU where
> it was previously pending.
>
> Due to the lack of appropriate memory barrier, the IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> flag value may not be visible by the CPU trying to claim while
> the work is executing, and that until we clear the busy bit in
> the work flags using cmpxchg() that implies the full barrier.
>
> One solution could involve a full barrier between setting
> IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag and the work execution. This way we
> ensure that the work execution site sees the expected data
> and the claim site sees the IRQ_WORK_BUSY:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> data = something flags = IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> smp_mb() (implicit with cmpxchg smp_mb()
> on flags in claim) execute_work (sees data from CPU 0)
> try to claim
>
> As a shortcut, let's just use xchg() that implies a full memory
> barrier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
> ---
> kernel/irq_work.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index 764240a..ea79365 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -130,9 +130,12 @@ void irq_work_run(void)
>
> /*
> * Clear the PENDING bit, after this point the @work
> - * can be re-used.
> + * can be re-used. Use xchg to force ordering against
> + * data to process, such that if claiming fails on
> + * another CPU, we see and handle the data it wants
> + * us to process on the work.
> */
> - work->flags = IRQ_WORK_BUSY;
> + xchg(&work->flags, IRQ_WORK_BUSY);
> work->func(work);
> /*
> * Clear the BUSY bit and return to the free state if
--
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