[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f86aa1672b447bd09a214bc8682a70934dcee82f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:05:03 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] ppc/smp: Replace unnecessary 'while' by 'if'
On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 08:40 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 05:37:52PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > spin_until_cond() will wait until nmi_ipi_busy == false, and
> > nmi_ipi_lock_start() does not seem to change nmi_ipi_busy, so there is
> > no way this while will ever repeat.
> >
> > Replace this 'while' by an 'if', so it does not look like it can repeat.
>
> Nack, it can repeat. The scenario is that cpu A is in this code,
> inside spin_until_cond(); cpu B has previously set nmi_ipi_busy, and
> cpu C is also waiting for nmi_ipi_busy to be cleared, like cpu A.
> When cpu B clears nmi_ipi_busy, both cpu A and cpu C will see that and
> will race inside nmi_ipi_lock_start(). One of them, say cpu C, will
> take the lock and proceed to set nmi_ipi_busy and then call
> nmi_ipi_unlock(). Then the other cpu (cpu A) will then take the lock
> and return from nmi_ipi_lock_start() and find nmi_ipi_busy == true.
> At that point it needs to go through the while loop body once more.
>
> Paul.
Ok, got it.
Thanks for explaining Paul!
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists