On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:49:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + /* Signal the writer is done */
> > > > + cpuhp_writer = 0;
> > > > + wake_up_all(&cpuhp_wq);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Wait for any pending readers to be running */
> > > > + cpuhp_writer_wait(!atomic_read(&cpuhp_waitcount));
> > > > + cpuhp_writer_task = NULL;
> > >
> > > We also need to ensure that the next reader should see all changes
> > > done by the writer, iow this lacks "realease" semantics.
> >
> > Good point -- I was expecting wake_up_all() to provide the release
> > semantics, but code could be reordered into __wake_up()'s critical
> > section, especially in the case where there was nothing to wake
> > up, but where there were new readers starting concurrently with
> > cpu_hotplug_done().
>
> Doh, indeed. I missed this in Oleg's email, but yes I made that same
> assumption about wake_up_all().
Well, I think this is even worse... No matter what the writer does,
the new reader needs mb() after it checks !__cpuhp_writer. Or we
need another synchronize_sched() in cpu_hotplug_done(). This is
what percpu_rw_semaphore() does (to remind, this can be turned into
call_rcu).
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>