lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: allow preemption in check_task_state
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:17:12 +0100
> Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > In rtmutex.c we have:
> > >
> > > pi_lock(&self->pi_lock);
> > > __set_current_state(self->saved_state);
> > > self->saved_state = TASK_RUNNING;
> > > pi_unlock(&self->pi_lock);
> > >
> > > As there is no wmb() here, it can be very possible that another CPU
> > > will see saved_state as TASK_RUNNING, and current state as
> > > TASK_RUNNING, and miss the update completely.
> > >
> > > I would not want to add a wmb() unless there is a real bug with the
> > > check state, as the above is in a very fast path and the check state is
> > > in a slower path.
> > >
> > maybe I'm missing/missunderstanding something here but
> > pi_unlock -> arch_spin_unlock is a full mb()
> > so once any task did an update of the state the loop should be catching
> > this update ? if the loop exits before the updat takes effect (pi_unlock)
> > would that be ncorrect ?
>
> Even if the spin locks were full memory barriers, it is still buggy.
> The fact that we set current_state to saved_state, and then saved_state
> to TASK_RUNNING without any memory barriers in between those two
> statements, means that the reader (even with a rmb()) can still see
> both as TASK_RUNNING.
>
ok - thanks - I think now I got it.

thx!
hofrat


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-10 20:01    [W:0.095 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site