[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATH -mm -v2] Fix a race condtion of oops_in_progress
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 00:42 +0800, Chris Snook wrote:
> Huang Ying wrote:
> > Hi, Chris,
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 08:51 -0600, Chris Snook wrote:
> >> Huang Ying wrote:
> >>> Fix a race condition accessing oops_in_progress. Which may be changed on
> >>> multiple CPU simultaneously, but it is changed via non-atomic operation
> >>> ++/--. This patch changes the definition of oops_in_process from int to
> >>> atomic_t, and accessing method to atomic operations.
> >> You also need barriers. I believe rmb() before atomic_read() and wmb() after
> >> atomic_set() should suffice.
> >
> > I don't think that is necessary. I haven't found there is particular
> > consistent requirement about oops_in_progress.
> atomic_read() and atomic_set() don't inherently cause changes to be visible on
> other CPUs any faster than ++ and -- operators. Sometimes it happens to work
> out that way as a result of how the compiler and the CPU order operations, but
> there's no semantic guarantee, and it could even take arbitrarily long under
> some circumstances. If you want to use atomic ops to close the race, you need
> to use barriers.

As far as I know, barriers don't cause changes to be visible on other
CPUs faster too. It just guarantees corresponding operations after will
not get executed until that before have finished. And, I don't think we
need make changes to be visible on other CPUs faster.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-03 02:55    [W:0.050 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site