On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 14:36 +0100, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > [ Cc:-ed workqueue/locking/suspend-race-condition experts. ]
>
> Heh. I am not expert, but I looked at the code. The obvious suspicious
> thing to see is the use of unpaired barriers? Maybe like this:
>
> 47 static void set_state(enum stopmachine_state newstate)
> 48 {
> 49 /* Reset ack counter. */
> 50 atomic_set(&thread_ack, num_threads);
> 51 smp_wmb();
>
> + /* force ordering between thread_ack/state */
>
> 52 state = newstate;
> 53 }
> 54
> 55 /* Last one to ack a state moves to the next state. */
> 56 static void ack_state(void)
> 57 {
> 58 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&thread_ack))
>
> Maybe
> + /* force ordering between thread_ack/state */
> + smp_rmb();
> here?
all atomic ops that have return values imply a full barrier, iirc
> 59 set_state(state + 1);
> 60 }
> 61
>
> Or maybe I am wrong. But Documentation/memory-barriers.txt is rather
> explicit on this point.
>
>
> Vegard
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
