On 10 Jan 2002, Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 00:10, kevin@koconnor.net wrote:
>
> > I was unable to figure out what the logic of the '(smp_processor_id() <
> > p->cpu)' test is.. (Why should the CPU number of the process being awoken
> > matter?) My best guess is that this is to enforce a locking invariant -
> > but if so, isn't this test backwards? If p->cpu > current->cpu then
> > p->cpu's runqueue is locked first followed by this_rq - locking greatest to
> > least, where the rest of the code does least to greatest..
>
> Not so sure of the validity, but it is to respect lock order. Locking
> order is to obtain the locks lowest CPU id first to prevent AB/BA
> deadlock. See the comment above the runqueue data structure for
> explanation.
>
> > Also, this code in set_cpus_allowed() looks bogus:
> >
> > if (target_cpu < smp_processor_id()) {
> > spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
> > spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
> > } else {
> > spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
> > spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
> > }
>
> This is certainly wrong, I noticed this earlier today. The unlocking
> order is not respected either, I suspect.
>
> I believe the code should be:
>
> if (target_cpu < smp_processor_id()) {
> spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
> spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
> } else {
> spin_lock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
> spin_lock(&target_rq->lock);
> }
Yes, this is a classical example of the famous cut-and-paste bug :)
>
> Not so sure about unlocking. Ingo?
Unlocking doesn't matter.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:30 EST