[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130416163041.dfa3e82bfa6b10ae8ffe7608@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:30:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Emmanuel Benisty <benisty.e@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hhuang@...hat.com, "Low, Jason" <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
"Vinod, Chegu" <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: ipc,sem: sysv semaphore scalability
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:35:33 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Do we need the locking at all? What does it actually do?
>
> sem_lock_and_putref(sma);
> if (sma->sem_perm.deleted) {
> sem_unlock(sma, -1);
> err = -EIDRM;
> goto out_free;
> }
> sem_unlock(sma, -1);
>
> We're taking the lock, testing an int and then dropping the lock.
> What's the point in that?
Rikpoke.
The new semctl_main() is now taking a lock, testing
sma->sem_perm.deleted then dropping that lock. It looks wrong. What
is that lock testing against? What prevents .deleted from changing
value 1ns after we dropped that lock?
--
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