From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 1/2] qrcu: "quick" srcu implementation
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:05:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061130170541.GA1869@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061130033757.GA4110@oleg>
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:37:57AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 11/29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm... Now I am wondering if the memory barriers inherent in the
> > > __wait_event() suffice for this last barrier... :-/ Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > + smp_mb();
> >
> > Fastpath skips __wait_event(), and it is possible that the reader does
> > lock/unlock between the first 'mb()' and 'if (atomic_read() == 1)'.
>
> In fact, a slow path needs (I think) it too. We can have an unrelated
> wakeup, and then the reader does unlock() before we check !atomic_read()
> in the __wait_event()'s loop. The reader removes us from ->wq, in that
> case finish_wait() does nothing.
Good point -- I was forgetting about the fastpath checks in __wait_event().
How about something like this?
/*
* The following memory barrier is needed to perserve ordering
* in the case where __wait_event() follows its fastpath,
* which includes neither locks nor memory barriers.
*/
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-30 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-29 23:53 [RFC, PATCH 1/2] qrcu: "quick" srcu implementation Oleg Nesterov
2006-11-30 1:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-11-30 2:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2006-11-30 3:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-11-30 3:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-11-30 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2006-12-01 0:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2006-12-07 17:16 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061130170541.GA1869@us.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=josh@freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.