On 06/11/2014 02:18 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:42:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:23:57AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>>> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> if (rnp->gpnum != rnp->completed ||
>>>>> - ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->gpnum) != ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->completed)) {
>>>>> + ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->gpnum) !=
>>>>> ACCESS_ONCE(rnp_root->completed)) {
>>>>
>>>> At this point in the code, we are checking the current rcu_node structure,
>>>> which might or might not be the root. If it is not the root, we absolutely
>>>> cannot compare against the root because we don't yet hold the root's lock.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was a bit thrown by the double checking which is being done
>>> (rnp->gpnum != rnp->complete) in that if condition. Once without
>>> ACCESS_ONCE and one with. Is there any particular reason for this?
>>>
>>> I now understand that we are comparing ->gpnum and ->completed of the
>>> root node which might change from under us if we don't hold the root's
>>> lock. I will keep looking :)
>>
>> Hmmm... Now that you mention it, that does look a bit strange.
>
> And it turns out that you were right to begin with! I queue your change,
> but with a full explanation in the commit log and with some additions to
> the comment. Please see below.
>
Awesome! A few more patches on your way :)
--
Pranith
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
