[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140618164359.GA18598@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:43:59 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand
unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On 06/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> + if (drop_boost_mutex) {
> + rt_mutex_unlock(&rnp->boost_mtx);
> complete(&rnp->boost_completion);
Well, I still do not understand this ->boost_completion...
> - /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> + /* Wait for boostee to be done w/boost_mtx before reinitializing. */
> wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
OK, at least we have a comment.
But let me repeat. Thomas has already fixed rt_mutex, unlock is atomic.
It doesn't touch this memory after it makes another lock() possible.
And (contrary to what I said initially) we can rely on this because -rt
converts spinlock_t into rt_mutex ?
Oleg.
--
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