lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)


    On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > [ Hint: you need a smp_mb() *before* the atomic_dec() in wait-unlock, so
    > that anybody else who sees the new value will be guaranteed to have seen
    > anything else the unlocker did.
    >
    > You also need a smp_mb() in the wait_for_lock(), not a smp_rmb(). Can't
    > allow writes to migrate up either. 'atomic_read()' does not imply any
    > barriers.
    >
    > But most architectures can optimize these things for their particular
    > memory ordering model, and do so in their rwsem implementation. ]

    Side note: if this was a real lock, you'd also needed an smp_wmb() in the
    'wait_lock()' path after the atomic_inc(), to make sure that others see
    the atomic lock was seen by other people before the suspend started.

    In your usage scenario, I don't think it would ever be noticeable, since
    the other users are always going to start running from the same thread
    that did the wait_lock(), so even if they run on other CPU's, we'll have
    scheduled _to_ those other CPU's and done enough memory ordering to
    guarantee that they will see the thing.

    So it would be ok in this situation, simply because it acts as an
    initializer and never sees any real SMP issues.

    But it's an example of how you now don't just depend on the locking
    primitives themselves doing the right thing, you end up depending very
    subtly on exactly how the lock is used. The standard locks do have the
    same kind of issue for initializers, but we avoid it elsewhere because
    it's so risky.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-08 19:55    [W:2.332 / U:0.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site