[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250219212708.78b93a84@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:27:08 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon
<will@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Boqun Feng
<boqun.feng@...il.com>, Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>, Anna
Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...cle.com>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Yongliang Gao
<leonylgao@...cent.com>, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, Sergey
Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linux
Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hung_task: Show the blocker task if the task is
hung on mutex
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:15:08 -0500
Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> Writer - setting them:
>
> WRITE_ONCE(lock)
> smp_wmb()
> WRITE_ONCE(type)
>
> Clearing them:
>
> WRITE_ONCE(type, 0)
> smp_wmb()
> WRITE_ONCE(lock, NULL)
>
> Reader:
>
> READ_ONCE(type)
> again:
> smp_rmb()
> READ_ONCE(lock)
> smp_rmb()
> if (READ_ONCE(type) != type)
> goto again
Do you really need the READ/WRITE_ONCE() with the memory barriers? From
what I understand, the compiler can't even assume what it read is the same
after passing a memory barrier like that. So there should be no reason it
can reread the memory location after a barrier.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists