Re: [patch] possible SMP races all over the place in wait_eventinterface

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, David S. Miller wrote:

>   From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>   instead of:
>
>                  current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
>   +               mb();
>
>   shouldnt we do:
>
>   +           xchgl(&current->state, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
>   This 'merges' the barrier and the write. Or rather, in asm-i386 we could
>   do something like: 
>
>   #define set_mb(addr,val) xchgl(addr,val)
>
>   and then use set_barrier().
>
>Sure, but it costs ~8 instructions instead of 2 on ll/sc architectures.

I don't know what is "ll/sc" but I agree that at least on architectures
that has a proper "mb" assembler instruction the mb() approch seems to be
right choice to me.

When we'll reach an agreement I'll be happy to redo the patch with a
different approch. ;) (after all the conversion will be only a trivial
task)

My proposal could be something like:

        set_current_state(INTERRUPTIBLE);

and #define a secondary:

        __set_current_state(INTERRUPTIBLE);

that it will never used by me, but it can be used to implement future code
that doesn't need an explicit SMP memory barrier.

Hints are welcome. ;)

Thanks.

Andrea

-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]