Hi George,
> > diff --git a/kernel/kgdb.c b/kernel/kgdb.c
> > index 761fdd2..ee7694b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kgdb.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kgdb.c
> > @@ -1537,6 +1537,7 @@ acquirelock:
> > * Wait till all the CPUs have quit
> > * from the debugger.
> > */
> > + smp_mb();
> > for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> > while (atomic_read(&cpu_in_kgdb[i]))
> > cpu_relax();
> >
> Doesn't this have the same issue if this cpu gets to the while prior to
> the other cpu doing its write. I would think the "smp_mb()" should be
> in the while loop not prior to it.
I don't think so. The deadlock in question is caused because the aggressive
reading in the polling loop prevents the write-buffer from being able to drain.
For a dual-core system the setup can be simplified like this:
Initially: x = 1, y = 1;
CPU1 CPU0
==== ====
while (y == 1); y = 0;
x = 0; while (x == 1); /* This loop prevents y from
leaving the store buffer */
So the patch inserts a memory barrier on CPU0 between the two lines,
forcing the update to y to become visible before the reads to x occur.
CPU1 will then trundle along happily and update x. The absence of a further
polling loop means that the update to x will become visible to CPU0 at some
future time.
Cheers,
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
