Peter,
Sorry. Unlikely I will be able to read this patch today. So let me
ask another potentially wrong question without any thinking.
On 09/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> +void __get_online_cpus(void)
> +{
> +again:
> + /* See __srcu_read_lock() */
> + __this_cpu_inc(__cpuhp_refcount);
> + smp_mb(); /* A matches B, E */
> + __this_cpu_inc(cpuhp_seq);
> +
> + if (unlikely(__cpuhp_state == readers_block)) {
OK. Either we should see state = BLOCK or the writer should notice the
change in __cpuhp_refcount/seq. (altough I'd like to recheck this
cpuhp_seq logic ;)
> + atomic_inc(&cpuhp_waitcount);
> + __put_online_cpus();
OK, this does wake(cpuhp_writer).
> void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> {
> ...
> + /*
> + * Notify new readers to block; up until now, and thus throughout the
> + * longish synchronize_sched() above, new readers could still come in.
> + */
> + __cpuhp_state = readers_block;
> +
> + smp_mb(); /* E matches A */
> +
> + /*
> + * If they don't see our writer of readers_block to __cpuhp_state,
> + * then we are guaranteed to see their __cpuhp_refcount increment, and
> + * therefore will wait for them.
> + */
> +
> + /* Wait for all now active readers to complete. */
> + wait_event(cpuhp_writer, cpuhp_readers_active_check());
But. doesn't this mean that we need __wait_event() here as well?
Isn't it possible that the reader sees BLOCK but the writer does _not_
see the change in __cpuhp_refcount/cpuhp_seq? Those mb's guarantee
"either", not "both".
Don't we need to ensure that we can't check cpuhp_readers_active_check()
after wake(cpuhp_writer) was already called by the reader and before we
take the same lock?
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/
