Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait

David Howells
2009-04-23T16:02:04Z

Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> I wonder if slow_work_cull_timeout() should have some sort of barrier,
> so the write is suitably visible to the woken thread. Bearing in mind
> that the thread might _already_ have been woken by someone else?

Perhaps the attached patch?

David
---
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] slow_work_cull_timeout() should have a memory barrier

slow_work_cull_timeout() should have a write memory barrier so that the setting
of the cull flag is seen before the wakeup takes place. This is required
because wake_up() does not guarantee any memory barriership at all.

Concomitant to this, slow_work_thread() should have a read memory barrier
between its return from schedule() and its testing of slow_work_cull() as
finish_wait() isn't a guaranteed barrier either.

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---

kernel/slow-work.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/slow-work.c b/kernel/slow-work.c
index 521ed20..96e418d 100644
--- a/kernel/slow-work.c
+++ b/kernel/slow-work.c
@@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ static int slow_work_thread(void *_data)
finish_wait(&slow_work_thread_wq, &wait);

try_to_freeze();
+ smp_rmb();

vsmax = vslow_work_proportion;
vsmax *= atomic_read(&slow_work_thread_count);
@@ -416,6 +417,7 @@ static int slow_work_thread(void *_data)
static void slow_work_cull_timeout(unsigned long data)
{
slow_work_cull = true;
+ smp_wmb();
wake_up(&slow_work_thread_wq);
}