[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: prev->has_cpu
    On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    >The patch has a serious bug: it marks the new CPU too late (after the
    >switch). That, in turn, means that if any interrupts come in at a bad time
    >that want to look at the CPU number, they get a stale value.

    Right. Escuse me for the spam. I understood that after some seconds (but
    was too late and I was on train when I understood that...).

    >Why would you want to move the setting?

    The ->processor setting is OK before the switch_to() and done on the
    `next' process (this because we have the real CPU number only in the
    kernel stack of the prev process and that number got automagically
    invalidated after the switch_to()).

    It' s the place where ->has_cpu is set, that it' s wrong according to me
    (I still think that now?!?).

    The point is that we _always_ set prev->use_cpu to 0. So if we are not
    going to switch_to() we' ll continue with current->use_cpu set to 0 and
    we' ll have a still sleeping process with use_cpu set to 1. There are some
    kind of loop in exit.c that could harm in SMP, if, for mistake, a sleeping
    process has use_cpu set to 1 I think:

    * Wait to make sure the process isn't active on any
    * other CPU
    for (;;) {
    int has_cpu;
    has_cpu = p->has_cpu;
    if (!has_cpu)
    do {
    } while (p->has_cpu);

    Please excuse me if I am missing something...

    Andrea Arcangeli

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.020 / U:145.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site