[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1472640977.2388.83.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 20:56:17 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 09:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 07:28:18AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> >
> > It's always been a requirement that if you actually context switch
> > a
> > full mb() is implied ...
>
> >
> > On powerpc we have a sync deep in _switch to achieve that.
>
> OK, fair enough. I must've missed it in the x86 switch_to, must be
> one
> of those implied serializing instructions I'm not too familiar with.
>
> >
> > (though that isn't the case if you don't actually
> > switch, ie, you are back to RUNNING before you even hit schedule).
>
> Right, which invalidates the claim that schedule() implies a full mb,
Right, it's only full mb if you actually schedule to another process :-
)
> >
> > This is necessary so that a process who wakes up on a different CPU
> > sees
> > all of its own load/stores.
>
> Don't actually think its needed for that, see the comment from
> 8643cda549ca4, the scheduler has enough barriers to guarantee
> Program-Order for tasks without that.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists