Sorry for delay,
On 09/02, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/01, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:59:23AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And just in case, wake_up() differs in a sense that it doesn't even need
> > > > that STORE-LOAD barrier in try_to_wake_up(), we can rely on
> > > > wait_queue_head_t->lock. Assuming that wake_up() pairs with the "normal"
> > > > wait_event()-like code.
> >
> > Looks like, you have missed this part of my previous email. See below.
>
> I guess I need to think through this, though I haven't found any problem
> in wake_up() if we remove the STORE-LOAD barrier in try_to_wake_up().
> And I know that in wake_up(), try_to_wake_up() will be called with
> holding wait_queue_head_t->lock, however, only part of wait_event()
> holds the same lock, I can't figure out why the barrier is not needed
> because of the lock..
This is very simple. __wait_event() does
for (;;) {
prepare_to_wait_event(WQ, ...); // takes WQ->lock
if (CONDITION)
break;
schedule();
}
and we have
CONDITION = 1;
wake_up(WQ); // takes WQ->lock
on another side.
Suppose that __wait_event() wins and takes WQ->lock first. It can block
then. In this case wake_up() must see the result of set_current_state()
and list_add() when it takes the same lock, otherwise spin_lock() would
be simply buggy. So it will wake the waiter up.
At the same time, if __wait_event() takes this lock after wake_up(), it
can not miss CONDITION = 1. It must see it after it takes the lock, and
of course after it drops the lock too.
So I am not sure I understand your concerns in this case...
Oleg.
--
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/
