lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake_up()
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Peter, sorry for slow responses.

No worries, I'm not entirely fast myself. Slept most of the day :-)

> Ah, I simply do not know what is cheaper, even on x86. Well, we need
> to enable/disable irqs, but again I do not really know how much does
> this cost.

Ah good point about that IRQ thing, yes that's horribly expensive.

> I can even say what (imo) looks better, lock/unlock above or
>
> // Ensure that the previous __set_current_state(RUNNING) can't
> // leak after spin_unlock_wait()
> smp_mb();
> spin_unlock_wait();
> // Another mb to ensure this too can't be reordered with unlock_wait
> set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
>
> What do you think looks better?

spin_unlock_wait() would be a control dependency right? Therefore that
store could not creep up anyhow.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-03 17:21    [W:0.523 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site