lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:11 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > Hello Thomas,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:34 PM
> > > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq()
> wait-forever
> > >
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there
> > > forever,
> > > > it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> > > >
> > > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > > disable_irq() irq_thread()
> > > > synchronize_irq()
> > > > wait_event()
> > > > adding the __wait into the queue wake_threads_waitq
> > > > test threads_active==0
> > > > atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
> > > >
> > > waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
> > > > <== Here without smp_mb(),
> CPU1
> > > maybe detect
> > > > the queue is still empty??
> > > > schedule()
> > > >
> > > > It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do
> the
> > > waking up action.
> > > > Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before
> > > waitqueue_active.
> > >
> > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > >
> > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > spin_lock
> > atomic_dec_and_test
> > insert into queue
> > spin_unlock
> > checking waitqueue_active
>
> But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
Not be clear here:)
The atomic_read has no barrier.

Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-21 13:01    [W:0.717 / U:25.928 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site