Re: Q: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: removesingle ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 21:49 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I am trying to understand the barriers in smp.c, please help!
> 
> "generic-ipi: fix the smp_mb() placement" commit
> 561920a0d2bb6d63343e83acfd784c0a77bd28d1 added smp_read_barrier_depends()
> to generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt().
> 
> Why it is needed? The comment says:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Need to see other stores to list head for checking whether
> 	 * list is empty without holding q->lock
> 	 */
> 	smp_read_barrier_depends();
> 	while (!list_empty(&q->list)) {
> 
> But we can't miss the addition to the call_single_queue.list,
> if generic_exec_single() sees list_empty(&dst->list) it sends
> another IPI?

I was about to write a response, but found it to be a justification for
the read_barrier_depends() at the end of the loop. 

> This commit also removed the barrier from csd_flag_wait(), is this OK?
> Without the barrier, csd_flag_wait() can return before we see the result
> of data->func() ?
> 
> IOW,
> 	int VAR = 0;
> 
> 	void func(coid *unused)
> 	{
> 		VAR = 1;
> 	}
> 
> Now,
> 
> 	smp_call_function_single(0, func, NULL, 1);
> 	BUG_ON(VAR == 0);
> 
> afaics, the BUG_ON() above is possible. Is this OK ?

Would it not be the caller's responsibility to provide the needed
serialization in this case?

--
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/