lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING
Hi Davidlohr,

On 04/28/2015 06:59 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Well, if you can 'guarantee' the cmpxchg will not fail, you can then
>> rely on the fact that cmpxchg implies a full barrier, which would
>> obviate the need for the wmb.
> Yes, assuming it implies barriers on both sides. And we could obviously
> remove the need for pairing. With wake_q being local to wq_sleep() I
> cannot see duplicate tasks trying to add themselves in the list. Failed
> cmpxchg should only occur when users start misusing the wake_q.
>
> Manfred, do you have any objections to this? Perhaps I've missed the
> real purpose of the barriers.
I don't remember the details either, so let's check what should happen:

CPU1: sender copies message to kernel memory
aaaa
CPU1: sender does receiver->msg = message;
** barrier 1
CPU1: sender does receiver->state = STATE_READY;

CPU2: receiver notices receiver->state = STATE_READY;
** barrier 2
CPU2: receiver reads receiver->msg
bbbb
CPU2: receiver reads *receiver->msg

Failures would be:
- write to receiver->state is visible before the write to receiver->msg
or to *receiver->msg
** barrier 1 needs to be an smp_wmb()
- cpu 2 reads receiver->msg before receiver->state
** barrier 2 needs to be an smp_rmb().

As far as I can see, no barrier is needed in pos aaaa or bbbb.

With regards to failed cmpxchg():
I don't see that mqueue could cause it by itself.

Who is allowed to use wake_q?
If it is permitted to use wake_q for e.g. timeout/signal delivery
wakeup, then that user might have a pending wakeup stored in the task
struct.

--
Manfred


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-29 22:21    [W:0.131 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site