Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1: IPC: sleeping function called ...

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:50:23AM +0200, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> >2. I'm not sure this refcounting with ipc_rcu_getref/putref is SMP
> >safe (memory barriers): it's not atomic, so locking is needed, but
> >e.g. in do_msgsnd() kern_ipc_perm lock is used for this, while
> >freeque() calls ipc_rcu_putref() with ipc_ids mutex only.
> >
> >3. Probably similar problem is possible with msr_d.r_msg which is
> >read in do_msgrcv() under rcu_read_lock() only.
> >
> 
> In think here they have avoided refcoutning by using r_msg:
> r_msg is initialzed to -EAGAIN before releasing the msq lock. if 
> freequeue() is called it sets r_msg to EIDRM (see expunge_all(-EIDRM)).
> Setting r_msg is always done under the msq lock (expunge_all() / 
> pipelined_Sned()).
>  Since rcu_read_lock is called right after schedule, they are sure the 
> msq pointer is still valid when they re-lock it once a msg is present in 
> the receive queue.
> 
> Please tell me if I'm not clear ;-)

All clear!

Except... this r_msg is still unclear to me. Since it's read without
msq lock I doubt this first check after schedule() is of any value. A
comment: "Lockless receive, part 2" tells about some safety against a
race with pipeline_send() and expunge_all() when in wake_up_process(),
but how can we be sure this r_msg is not just to be changed and this
wake_up_process() is running while "while" check still sees
ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN) instead of NULL?

Thanks & sorry for delay,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/