(to clarify: my question is completely offtopic to this patch)
On 03/17, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:30:47PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > In the process of writing up the mechanical proof of correctness for the
> > > dynticks/preemptable-RCU interface, I noticed misplaced memory barriers
> > > in rcu_enter_nohz() and rcu_exit_nohz().
> >
> > Can't comment this patch, there is no rcu_enter_nohz() in my rcupreempt.h ;)
>
> It is in 2.6.25-rc4 and later. ;-)
Ah, for some reasons I'm still with -rc2 ...
> > I'm not sure the code below is up to date, but what I have in
> > arch/s390/kernel/time.c is:
> >
> > stop_hz_timer:
> >
> > cpu_set(cpu, nohz_cpu_mask);
> >
> > if (rcu_needs_cpu(cpu) || local_softirq_pending()) {
> > cpu_clear(cpu, nohz_cpu_mask);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > Don't we need smp_mb() after cpu_set() ?
>
> S390's memory model is quite strong, so it might not be needed.
OK, in that case we shouldn't worry.
> In any
> case, if needed, it goes -before- the cpu_set(), because the problems
> would arise if prior RCU read-side critical sections were to be reordered
> to follow this cpu_set(), right?
No, but it is very possible I missed something.
What if rcu_needs_cpu(cpu) is executed before cpu_set(cpu, nohz_cpu_mask)?
It can miss rcu_start_batch() -> rcp->cur++ and return false, but at the
same time rcu_start_batch() may see nohz_cpu_mask without this CPU.
No?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
