[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: freezer: should barriers be smp ?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 16:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> when we suspend/resume Blackfin SMP systems, we notice that the
>> freezer code runs on multiple cores.  this is of course what you want
>> -- freeze processes in parallel.  however, the code only uses non-smp
>> based barriers which causes us problems ... our cores need software
>> support to keep caches in sync, so our smp barriers do just that.  but
>> the non-smp barriers do not, and so the frozen/thawed processes
>> randomly get stuck in the wrong task state.
>> thinking about it, shouldnt the freezer code be using smp barriers ?
> Yes, it should, but rmb() and wmb() are supposed to be SMP barriers.
> Or do you mean something different?

then what's the diff between smp_rmb() and rmb() ?

this is what i'm proposing:
--- a/kernel/freezer.c
+++ b/kernel/freezer.c
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ static inline void frozen_process(void)
if (!unlikely(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
current->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
- wmb();
+ smp_wmb();
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p, bool sig_only)
* the task as frozen and next clears its TIF_FREEZE.
if (!freezing(p)) {
- rmb();
+ smp_rmb();
if (frozen(p))
return false;

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: 2011-04-13 23:05    [W:0.049 / U:5.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site