On 02/28, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 02/27, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >>
> >> +void lg_rwlock_local_read_lock(struct lgrwlock *lgrw)
> >> +{
> >> + preempt_disable();
> >> +
> >> + if (__this_cpu_read(*lgrw->local_refcnt) ||
> >> + arch_spin_trylock(this_cpu_ptr(lgrw->lglock->lock))) {
> >> + __this_cpu_inc(*lgrw->local_refcnt);
> >
> > Please look at __this_cpu_generic_to_op(). You need this_cpu_inc()
> > to avoid the race with irs. The same for _read_unlock.
>
> Hmmm, I was thinking that this was safe because while interrupts might
> modify local_refcnt to acquire a nested read lock, they are expected
> to release that lock as well which would set local_refcnt back to its
> original value ???
Yes, yes, this is correct.
I meant that (in general, x86 is fine) __this_cpu_inc() itself is not
irq-safe. It simply does "pcp += 1".
this_cpu_inc() is fine, _this_cpu_generic_to_op() does cli/sti around.
I know this only because I did the same mistake recently, and Srivatsa
explained the problem to me ;)
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
