[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:00:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] Fix: sched/membarrier: p->mm->membarrier_state
racy load (v2)
On 09/08, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> +static void sync_runqueues_membarrier_state(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + int membarrier_state = atomic_read(&mm->membarrier_state);
> + bool fallback = false;
> + cpumask_var_t tmpmask;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (atomic_read(&mm->mm_users) == 1 || num_online_cpus() == 1) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(this_rq()->membarrier_state, membarrier_state);
This doesn't look safe, this caller can migrate to another CPU after
it calculates the per-cpu ptr.
I think you need do disable preemption or simply use this_cpu_write().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists