On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:50:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, so I looked at the set_mb() definitions and I figure we want to do
> > something like the below, right?
>
> I don't think you need to do this for the non-smp cases.
Well, its the store tearing thing again, we use WRITE_ONCE() in
smp_store_release() for the same reason. We want it to be a single
store.
> The whole
> thing is about smp memory ordering, so on UP you don't even need the
> WRITE_ONCE(), much less a barrier.
No, we actually need both still on UP.
Imagine the following sequence:
for (;;) {
set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE);
if (cond)
break;
schedule();
}
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
vs
<IRQ>
wake_up_process(p);
As we know, set_current_state() is set_mb(), and thus will look like:
current->state = TASK_KILLABLE;
smp_mb();
if (cond)
break;
So without the WRITE_ONCE() we can get store tearing, and suppose our
compiler is insane and translates the store into 4 byte stores.
current->state[0] = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
current->state[1] = TASK_WAKEKILL >> 8;
current->state[2] = 0;
current->state[3] = 0;
The obvious fail here is to get the wakeup interrupt between [0] and
[1].
current->state[0] = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
<IRQ>
wake_up_process(p);
p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
current->state[1] = TASK_WAKEKILL >> 8;
current->state[2] = 0;
current->state[3] = 0;
With the end result that ->state == TASK_WAKEKILL, from which we'll not
wake up unless killed.
Similarly, without the barrier(), our friendly compiler is allowed to
do:
if (cond)
break
current->state = TASK_KILLABLE;
schedule();
Which we all know to be broken.
So no, set_mb() (or smp_store_mb()) very much does need the WRITE_ONCE()
and a barrier() on UP.
--
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/
