On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 19:13 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 13:32 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > >> Nope, taking only one that hunk from this patch isn't sufficient. > >> Around > >> dpc_thread there is pretty simple and classical race. You can't do > >> > >> if (x != NULL) > >> y = *x; > >> > >> without any protection, if x can be set to NULL by another thread. It > >> can happen exactly between "if" and "*x" and hence lead to a crash, > >> correct? > > > > No. > > What "No"? The above unlocked "if (x != NULL) y = *x;" is always safe > now? ;) No ... no as in your analysis based on the example is not correct to conclude protection is required. We have quite a number of examples of this within the linux kernel (the SCSI error thread would be one). > > Today we go to reasonable lengths to avoid additional locking. > > Spinlocks are nasty in most boxes because of the potential for > > introducing hot points and cacheline bouncing. > > > > The first question you ask is how hot is the variable ... as in how > > constantly changing is it? This one is set at start of day and cleared > > when the thread is killed in shutdown. Basically there's a single not > > NULL -> NULL transition. Once NULL, it never goes back to not NULL. > > > > The point is that in this particular circumstance, the lock is overkill. > > You can either use other indicators to show that the driver is being > > removed (and the thread is dying) or you can simply use some type of > > refcounting to ensure the thread isn't killed until it's no longer > > needed. > > > > Even if it were a constantly changing variable, and therefore a more > > ideal candidate for locking, we might still look into atomics and bitops > > before adding a lock. > > Sure, all you wrote above is correct, but in this *particular* case what > you propose is an overkill, not use of the spinlock. Waking up DPC > thread isn't on the hot path by any mean, it's quite rare event. So, all > those lockfree techniques comparing to a simple single lock would > introduce only additional complicated code without any measurable gain. It's important to think about this kind of thing even in cases where it doesn't necessarily matter that much just so it becomes standard practice in cases where it does. > But, as I already wrote, I don't care much how this problem will be > fixed. I care only that it should be fixed. So, my point was only that > use from my patch only one hunk > > - wake_up_process(ha->dpc_thread); > + qla2xxx_wake_dpc(ha); > > is insufficient to fix the problem. Yes, I agree with that ... I just want to see a better fix. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
