[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is stopmachine() preempt safe?
Rusty Russell (on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:38:55 +1000) wrote:
>On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 19:42 +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>> I cannot convince myself that stopmachine() is preempt safe. What
>> prevents this race with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y?
>Nothing. Read side is preempt_disable. Write side is stopmachine.

That is very worrying. The whole point of stopmachine is to get all
cpus to a known state with no locally cached global data, so the caller
of stopmachine can safely fiddle with some global data (like updating
the module lists). But CONFIG_PREEMPT defeats this and turns any code
that relies on stopmachine into a race.

What we need is either a scheduler flag or a new task state to be
assigned to the kstopmachine threads. That indicator says

If the current state is not preempt active then schedule me.

If the current state is preempt active then put me back in the active

While the runqueue contains at least one task with this flag then
ignore reschedule on irq and prempt_enable.

That will ensure that the kstopmachine threads get scheduled as soon as
possible but only when all the preempted tasks have got to a clean stop
point, e.g. sleep or yield. At which point they have no locally cached
global data, making stopmachine race safe again.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-28 04:59    [W:0.034 / U:53.096 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site