[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140903151848.GA6312@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:18:48 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 09/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > // 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.
Hmm. indeed, thanks! This probably means that task_work_run() can use
rmb() instead of mb().
What I can't understand is do we still need a compiler barrier or not.
Probably "in theory yes" ?
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