> On Dec 16, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 19:59 +0530, Tabrez khan wrote:
>> Remove unnecessary braces {} for single while statement.
>
> Your patch is fine Tabrez, but to the lustre folk:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c
>> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_io.c
> []
>> @@ -1371,9 +1371,9 @@ int cl_sync_io_wait(const struct lu_env *env, struct
>> cl_sync_io *anchor,
> LASSERT(atomic_read(&anchor->csi_sync_nr) == 0);
>
> /* wait until cl_sync_io_note() has done wakeup */
> - while (unlikely(atomic_read(&anchor->csi_barrier) != 0)) {
> + while (unlikely(atomic_read(&anchor->csi_barrier) != 0))
> cpu_relax();
> - }
> +
>
> What if the wakeup never occurs/succeeds?
> Should there be a timeout?
There is no wakeup at all. This piece of code is to solve the preempting race
condition in cl_sync_io_end(), where it calls wake_up_all() to wake up the
cl_sync_io_wait() process, and then is preempted _inside_ wake_up_all(), and
then cl_sync_io_wait() process gains the CPU and frees memory cl_sync_io.
Therefore when cl_sync_io_end() comes back to finish its work in wake_up_all(),
a piece of freed memory will be accessed.
csi_barrier is proposed to solve this problem, which makes sure wake_up_all()
is complete before cl_sync_io_wait() can continue. It should be a really short
time so it’s reasonable for cl_sync_io_wait() to do a busy loop wait.
Jinshan
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-de...@lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
