[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402211230100.21251@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:52:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Wang, Xiaoming" <xiaoming.wang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq()
wait-forever
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > > >
> > > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > spin_lock
> > > atomic_dec_and_test
> > > insert into queue
> > > spin_unlock
> > > checking waitqueue_active
> >
> > But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
> Not be clear here:)
> The atomic_read has no barrier.
>
> Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
> waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.
Indeed, you are completely right. Great detective work!
I'm inclined to remove the waitqueue_active() alltogether. It's
creating more headache than it's worth.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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