Re: beware of add_waitqueue/waitqueue_active

Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-30T21:58:26Z

On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:56PM +0530, V Ganesh wrote:
> 3. add_wait_queue adds this process to the waitqueue. but all the writes
> are in write-buffers and have not gone down to cache/memory yet.
> 4. PageLocked() finds that the page is locked.

Right.

> [..] speculative execution
> of PageLocked() even before add_wait_queue returns [..]

Right.

Both could happen because of the new spin_unlock implementation that doesn't
take anymore the lock on the bus:

#define spin_unlock_string \
"movb $1,%0"

With the previous `lock ; btrl' 4) couldn't happen with pending
writes on the write buffer because spin_unlock was a full barrier too...

Alpha was safe because it has to imply an mb() in spin_unlock (but
sparc64 was hurted too for example).

As you say the problematic construct is not used anymore into 2.4.0-test12-pre2
in filemap.c so such deadlock can't happen anymore but it's been useful that
you pointing out the problem, thanks.

Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/