lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add support for deferrable timers (respun)
On 03/27, Venki Pallipadi wrote:
>
> for (;;) {
> - base = timer->base;
> + tvec_base_t *prelock_base = timer->base;
> + base = timer_get_base(timer);
> if (likely(base != NULL)) {
> spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, *flags);
> - if (likely(base == timer->base))
> + if (likely(prelock_base == timer->base))
> return base;

I don't think this is correct, at least in theory.

Suppose that

tvec_base_t *prelock_base = timer->base;
base = timer_get_base(timer);

are re-ordered (the second LOAD happens after the first one), and the timer
changes its base in between. Now, we lock the old base, and return it because
"prelock_base == timer->base" == true.

Oleg.

-
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: 2007-03-27 23:15    [W:0.083 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site