The need for the smp_mb in __rwsem_do_wake should be properly documented. Applies to both xadd and spinlock variants.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> --- kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c | 7 +++++++ kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 7 +++++++ 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c index 2555ae1..3a50485 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c @@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, int wakewrite) list_del(&waiter->list); tsk = waiter->task; + /* + * Make sure we do not wakeup the next reader before + * setting the nil condition to grant the next reader; + * otherwise we could miss the wakeup on the other + * side and end up sleeping again. See the pairing + * in rwsem_down_read_failed(). + */ smp_mb(); waiter->task = NULL; wake_up_process(tsk); diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c index 2f7cc40..82aba46 100644 --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c @@ -186,6 +186,13 @@ __rwsem_do_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem, enum rwsem_wake_type wake_type) waiter = list_entry(next, struct rwsem_waiter, list); next = waiter->list.next; tsk = waiter->task; + /* + * Make sure we do not wakeup the next reader before + * setting the nil condition to grant the next reader; + * otherwise we could miss the wakeup on the other + * side and end up sleeping again. See the pairing + * in rwsem_down_read_failed(). + */ smp_mb(); waiter->task = NULL; wake_up_process(tsk); -- 2.1.4 -- 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/
