On 11/19, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > > What happens if synchronize_xxx manages to execute inbetween
> > > xxx_read_lock's
> > >
> > > idx = sp->completed & 0x1;
> > > atomic_inc(sp->ctr + idx);
> > >
> > > statements?
> >
> > Oops. I forgot about explicit mb() before sp->completed++ in synchronize_xxx().
> >
> > So synchronize_xxx() should do
> >
> > smp_mb();
> > idx = sp->completed++ & 0x1;
> >
> > for (;;) { ... }
> >
> > > You see, there's no way around using synchronize_sched().
> >
> > With this change I think we are safe.
> >
> > If synchronize_xxx() increments ->completed in between, the caller of
> > xxx_read_lock() will see all memory ops (started before synchronize_xxx())
> > completed. It is ok that synchronize_xxx() returns immediately.
>
> Yes, the reader will see a consistent picture, but it will have
> incremented the wrong element of sp->ctr[]. What happens if another
> synchronize_xxx() occurs while the reader is still running?
It will wait for xxx_read_unlock() on reader's side. And for this reason
this idx in fact is not exactly wrong :)
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
