On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 23:19 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Thank you for pointing out.
>
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Currently, TOMOYO Linux avoids read_lock, on the assumption that
> > > (1) First, ptr->next is initialized with NULL.
> > > (2) Later, ptr->next is assigned non-NULL address.
> > > (3) Assigning to ptr->next is done atomically.
> > (4) wmb after asigning ptr->next
> > (5) rmb before reading ptr->next
> Excuse me, but I didn't understand why (4) and (5) are needed.
>
> append_function() {
>
> down(semaphore_for_write_protect);
> ...
> ptr = head;
> while (ptr->next) ptr = ptr->next;
> ptr->next = new_entry;
> ...
> up(semaphore_for_write_protect);
>
> }
If at all possible, use struct mutex.
> read_function() {
>
> for (ptr = head; ptr; ptr = ptr->next) {
> ...
> }
>
> }
>
> Are (4) and (5) needed even when (3) is exclusively protected by down() and up() ?
the up() would do 4. 5 ensures another cpu will actually see it. Althoug
in practise the various cache invalidations driven by the workload will
ensure it will become visible eventually anyway.
-
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]
