[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: beware of add_waitqueue/waitqueue_active
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:56PM +0530, V Ganesh wrote:
> 3. add_wait_queue adds this process to the waitqueue. but all the writes
> are in write-buffers and have not gone down to cache/memory yet.
> 4. PageLocked() finds that the page is locked.


> [..] speculative execution
> of PageLocked() even before add_wait_queue returns [..]


Both could happen because of the new spin_unlock implementation that doesn't
take anymore the lock on the bus:

#define spin_unlock_string \
"movb $1,%0"

With the previous `lock ; btrl' 4) couldn't happen with pending
writes on the write buffer because spin_unlock was a full barrier too...

Alpha was safe because it has to imply an mb() in spin_unlock (but
sparc64 was hurted too for example).

As you say the problematic construct is not used anymore into 2.4.0-test12-pre2
in filemap.c so such deadlock can't happen anymore but it's been useful that
you pointing out the problem, thanks.

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 12:49    [W:0.041 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site