Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake_up()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 09/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 	// Ensure that the previous __set_current_state(RUNNING) can't
> > 	// leak after spin_unlock_wait()
> > 	smp_mb();
> > 	spin_unlock_wait();
> > 	// Another mb to ensure this too can't be reordered with unlock_wait
> > 	set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
> >
> > What do you think looks better?
>
> spin_unlock_wait() would be a control dependency right? Therefore that
> store could not creep up anyhow.

Hmm. indeed, thanks! This probably means that task_work_run() can use
rmb() instead of mb().

What I can't understand is do we still need a compiler barrier or not.
Probably "in theory yes" ?

Oleg.

--
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/