On 02/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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.
Just in case, it is not that I really understand why __this_cpu_inc() can
race with irq in this particular case (given that irq handler should
restore the counter).
So perhaps I am wrong again. The comments in include/linux/percpu.h look
confusing to me, and I simply know nothing about !x86 architectures. But
since, say, preempt_disable() doesn't do anything special then probably
__this_cpu_inc() is fine too.
In short: please ignore 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
