[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150127170732.GI21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:07:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] locking/rwsem: Document barrier need when waking
tasks
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:36:05PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> The need for the smp_mb in __rwsem_do_wake should be
> properly documented. Applies to both xadd and spinlock
> variants.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c | 5 +++++
> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> index 2555ae1..54f7a17 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,11 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite)
>
> list_del(&waiter->list);
> tsk = waiter->task;
> + /*
> + * Ensure that all cores see the read before
> + * setting it to the waiter task to nil, as that
> + * grants the read lock to the next task.
> + */
> smp_mb();
> waiter->task = NULL;
> wake_up_process(tsk);
Could you enhance that comment by pointing at the pairing code? Is that
the wait loop in rwsem_down_read_failed()?
Also, the comment confuses, how can all cores observe a read into a
local variable?
--
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