lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Possible race condition in i386 global_irq_lock handling.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, TeJun Huh wrote:

> I've been reading i386 interrupt handling code for a couple of days
> and encountered something that looks like a race condition. It's
> between include/asm-i386/hardirq.h:irq_enter() and
> arch/i386/kernel/irq.c:get_irqlock(). They seem to be using lockless
> synchronization with local_irq_count of each cpu and global_irq_lock
> variable.

Ok 2.4 (but for future try and mention which kernel version). You'll have
to forgive me if i misunderstand you..

> A. locking CPU
>
> 1. Do test_and_set_bit() on global_irq_lock, if fail, repeat.
> 2. If all local_irq_count's are zero, we're the winner. Check other
> stuff; otherwise, clear global_irq_lock and retry.

Are you referring to hardirq_trylock()?

> B. other CPUs
>
> 1. Increment local_irq_count
> 2. test_bit() on global_irq_lock, if zero, continue handling interrupt;
> otherwise, wait till it's cleared.
>
> For this to work, the locking CPU should fetch the value of
> local_irq_count after global_irq_lock value becomes visible to other
> CPUs, and other CPUs should fetch the value of global_irq_lock after
> making the incremented local_irq_count visible to other CPUs.

Why after? it's currently in an interrupt anyway, the local_irq_count is
per cpu so it's not used on other cpus why do you need to make it
visible on other processors? (save irqs_running() but even that's ok)

> The locking CPU is OK because test_and_set_bit() forces ordering on
> x86, but there should be a mb() betweewn step 1 and 2 for other CPUs
> because none of ++ and test_bit is ordering. The B part is irq_enter()
> in hardirq.h which looks like the following.
>
> static inline void irq_enter(int cpu, int irq)
> {
> ++local_irq_count(cpu);
>
> while (test_bit(0,&global_irq_lock)) {
> cpu_relax();
> }
> }
>
> Is it a race condition or am I getting it horribly wrong? Thx in
> advance.

I don't see or understand the race condition you're describing,
local_irq_count is per cpu.

Zwane

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.047 / U:28.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site