On 09/01, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> But I'm still a little confused at Oleg's words:
>
> "What is really important is that we have a barrier before we _read_ the
> task state."
>
> I read is as "What is really important is that we have a barrier before
> we _read_ the task state and _after_ we write the CONDITION", if I don't
> misunderstand Oleg, this means a STORE-barrier-LOAD sequence,
Yes, exactly.
Let's look at this trivial code again,
CONDITION = 1;
wake_up_process();
note that try_to_wake_up() does
if (!(p->state & state))
goto out;
If this LOAD could be reordered with STORE(CONDITION) above we can obviously
race with
set_current_state(...);
if (!CONDITION)
schedule();
See the comment at the start of try_to_wake_up(). And again, again, please
note that initially the only documented behaviour of smp_mb__before_spinlock()
was the STORE - LOAD serialization. This is what try_to_wake_up() needs, it
doesn't actually need the write barrier after STORE(CONDITION).
And just in case, wake_up() differs in a sense that it doesn't even need
that STORE-LOAD barrier in try_to_wake_up(), we can rely on
wait_queue_head_t->lock. Assuming that wake_up() pairs with the "normal"
wait_event()-like code.
> which IIUC
> can't pair with anything.
It pairs with the barrier implied by set_current_state().
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
