[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150918134453.GA11630@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:44:53 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"mhocko@...e.cz" <mhocko@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ktsan@...glegroups.com" <ktsan@...glegroups.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Hans Boehm <hboehm@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: fix data race in put_pid
On 09/18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Provide atomic_read_ctrl() to mirror READ_ONCE_CTRL(), such that we can
> more conveniently use atomics in control dependencies.
>
> Since we can assume atomic_read() implies a READ_ONCE(), we must only
> emit an extra smp_read_barrier_depends() in order to upgrade to
> READ_ONCE_CTRL() semantics.
...
> +static inline int atomic_read_ctrl(atomic_t *v)
> +{
> + int val = atomic_read(v);
> + smp_read_barrier_depends(); /* Enforce control dependency. */
> + return val;
> +}
Help. I am starting to think that the control dependencies is even more
hard to understand that memory barriers...
So I assume that if we have
int X = 0;
atomic_t Y = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
void w(void)
{
X = 1;
atomic_inc_return(&Y);
}
then
void r(void)
{
if (atomic_read_ctrl(&Y))
BUG_ON(X == 0);
}
should be correct? Why?
If not then I am even more confused.
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