[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190629182132.GA5666@andrea>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:21:32 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
> Remark: we do have code which (while acknowledging that "interrupts are
> synchronization points") doesn't quite seem to "believe it", c.f., e.g.,
> kernel/sched/membarrier.c:ipi_mb(). So, I guess the follow-up question
> would be "Would we better be (more) paranoid? ..."
should have been "IPIs are serializing" (so all a different "order"...)
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists