lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] sched: Add smp_rmb() in task rq locking cycles
Hi Oleg,

my example was bad, let's continue with your example.

And: If sem_lock() needs another smp_xmb(), then we must add it:
Some apps do not have a user space hot path, i.e. it seems that on some
setups, we have millions of calls per second.
If there is a race, then it will happen.

I've tried to merge your example:
>
> int X = 0, Y = 0;
>
> void func(void)
> {
> bool ll = rand();
>
> if (ll) {
> spin_lock(&local);
> if (!spin_is_locked(&global))
> goto done;
> spin_unlock(&local);
> }
> ll = false;
> spin_lock(&global);
> spin_unlock_wait(&local);
> done:
> smp_rmb(); <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> BUG_ON(X != Y);
>
> ++X; ++Y;
>
> if (ll)
> spin_unlock(&local);
> else
> spin_unlock(&global);
> }
I agree, we need the smp_rmb().
I'll write a patch.

> We need the full barrier to serialize STORE's as well, but probably we can
> rely on control dependancy and thus we only need rmb().
Do we need a full barrier or not?

I don't manage to create a proper line of reasoning.
--
Manfred


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-20 19:41    [W:0.164 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site