Re: [PATCH] time: Add locking to xtime access in get_seconds()

[john stultz]

On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 22:24 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 Ã 13:17 -0700, john stultz a Ãcrit :
> > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 19:57 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > I suspect the reason this hasn't been triggered on x86 or power6 is due
> > > > to compiler or processor optimizations reordering the assignment to in
> > > > effect make it atomic. Or maybe the timing window to see the issue is
> > > > harder to observe?
> > > 
> > > On x86 all aligned stores are atomic. So I don't see how this 
> > > could be a problem ever.
> > 
> > No no. The issue was with the fact that in update_xtime_cache we modify
> > xtime_cache twice (once setting it possibly backwards to xtime, then
> > adding in the nsec offset).
> > 
> > Since get_seconds does no locking, this issue should be visible
> > anywhere, as long as you manage to hit the race window between the first
> > assignment and the second.
> > 
> > However, in the testing, the issue only showed up on P7, but not P6 or
> > x86.
> > 
> > My guess was that the code:
> > 
> > xtime_cache.sec = xtime.sec
> > xtime_cache.nsec = xtime.nsec
> > xtime_cache.sec = xtime_cache.sec 
> > 		 + div(xtime_cache.nsec + nsec, NSEC_PER_SEC, &rem);
> > xtime_cache.nsec = rem
> > 
> > Was getting rearranged to:
> > 
> > xtime_cache.sec = xtime.sec 
> > 		+ div(xtime.nsec + nsec, NSEC_PER_SEC, &rem);
> > xtime_cache.nsec = rem
> > 
> > 
> > Which makes the xtime_cache.sec update atomic.
> > 
> > But its just a guess.
> 
> Sure (disassembly could help to check this), but get_seconds() reads
> xtime.tv_sec  ;)

Currently, yes. 
But as I mentioned in an earlier mail, the problem was with
2.6.32-stable.

thanks
-john



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/