On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> + struct userfaultfd_wake_range *range)
> +{
> + if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->fault_wqh))
> + __wake_userfault(ctx, range);
> +}
Pretty much every single time people use this "if
(waitqueue_active())" model, it tends to be a bug, because it means
that there is zero serialization with people who are just about to go
to sleep. It's fundamentally racy against all the "wait_event()" loops
that carefully do memory barriers between testing conditions and going
to sleep, because the memory barriers now don't exist on the waking
side.
So I'm making a new rule: if you use waitqueue_active(), I want an
explanation for why it's not racy with the waiter. A big comment about
the memory ordering, or about higher-level locks that are held by the
caller, or something.
Linus
--
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>