On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 19:52 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/22, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > truct tasklet_struct, work);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&t->count))) {
> > > > + pr_debug("tasklet disabled %s %p\n", t->n, t);
> > > > + set_bit(TASKLET_STATE_PENDING, &t->state);
> > > > + smp_mb();
> > > > + /* make sure we were not just enabled */
> > > > + if (likely(atomic_read(&t->count)))
> > > > + goto out;
> > > > + clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_PENDING, &t->state);
Yeah, I knew of the race but didn't think that running a tasklet
function twice would cause much harm here. But not running it when it
needs to run, can have quite a negative impact.
>
> So, t->func() will be executed twice because tasklet_enable() does
> tasklet_schedule().
>
>
> So I think we need a fix for work_tasklet_exec,
>
> - clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_PENDING);
> + if (!test_and_clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_PENDING))
> goto out;
>
OK, I like this. I'll add it in the next round.
>
>
> Steven, a very stupid suggestion, could you move the code for tasklet_enable()
> up, closer to tasklet_disable() ?
Not a stupid suggestion. I'll accommodate it.
Thanks,
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
