RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
From: Liu, Chuansheng
Date: Fri Feb 21 2014 - 06:02:02 EST
Hello Thomas,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:34 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there
> forever,
> > it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > disable_irq() irq_thread()
> > synchronize_irq()
> > wait_event()
> > adding the __wait into the queue wake_threads_waitq
> > test threads_active==0
> > atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
> >
> waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
> > <== Here without smp_mb(), CPU1
> maybe detect
> > the queue is still empty??
> > schedule()
> >
> > It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do the
> waking up action.
> > Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before
> waitqueue_active.
>
> I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> there is definitely a potential issue.
>
But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
spin_lock
atomic_dec_and_test
insert into queue
spin_unlock
checking waitqueue_active
Here after inserting into the queue, before waitqueue_active,
there is no mb.
So is it still the case? Thanks.
--
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/