[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150227115428.GA24151@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:54:28 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] futex: don't spin waiting for PF_EXITING ->
PF_EXITPIDONE transition
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:52:40AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:13:36PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> > index b101381..c1104a8 100644
> > +++ b/kernel/futex.c
> > @@ -716,11 +716,13 @@ void exit_pi_state_list(struct task_struct *curr)
> >
> > if (!futex_cmpxchg_enabled)
> > return;
> > +
> > /*
> > + * attach_to_pi_owner() can no longer add the new entry. But
> > + * we have to be careful versus waiters unqueueing themselves.
> > */
> > + curr->flags |= PF_EXITPIDONE;
> > +
> > raw_spin_lock_irq(&curr->pi_lock);
> > while (!list_empty(head)) {
> >
>
> Should we not set PF_EXITPIDONE _inside_ the pi_lock? To properly
> serialize against the below check?
It does not matter, n/m.
--
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