lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [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
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 15:35 +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > You're correct that barrier() has no impact on other CPUs. wmb() and rmb() do.
> > > If we don't need to make changes visible any faster, what's the point in using
> > > atomic_set()? It's not any less racy. atomic_inc() and atomic_dec() would be
> > > less racy, but you're not using those.
> >
> > In default bust_spinlocks() implementation in lib/bust_spinlocks.c,
> > atomic_inc() and atomic_dec_and_test() is used. Which is used by x86
> > too. In some other architecture, atomic_set() is used to replace
> > "oops_in_progress = <xxx>". So this patch fixes architectures which use
> > default bust_spinlocks(), other architectures can be fixed by
> > corresponding architecture developers.
>
> I think Chris is right.
> So, I reccomend to read Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>
> Almost architecture gurantee atomic_inc cause barrier implicitly.
> but not _all_ architecture.

Yes. atomic_inc() doesn't imply barrier on all architecture. But we
should not add barriers before all atomic_inc(), just ones needed. Can
you figure out which ones in the patch should has barrier added?

Best Regards,
Huang Ying

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-11 02:07    [W:0.054 / U:2.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site