[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140903144450.GB7083@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:44:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
Guillaume Morin <guillaume@...infr.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race
with try_to_wake_up()
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Peter, sorry for slow responses.
No worries, I'm not entirely fast myself. Slept most of the day :-)
> Ah, I simply do not know what is cheaper, even on x86. Well, we need
> to enable/disable irqs, but again I do not really know how much does
> this cost.
Ah good point about that IRQ thing, yes that's horribly expensive.
> I can even say what (imo) looks better, lock/unlock above or
>
> // Ensure that the previous __set_current_state(RUNNING) can't
> // leak after spin_unlock_wait()
> smp_mb();
> spin_unlock_wait();
> // Another mb to ensure this too can't be reordered with unlock_wait
> set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
>
> What do you think looks better?
spin_unlock_wait() would be a control dependency right? Therefore that
store could not creep up anyhow.
--
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