On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> The point is, I don't care about the imbalance report.
OK, we are not on the same page.
Sorry for wasting my time.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> The point is, I don't care about the imbalance report.
OK, we are not on the same page.
Sorry for wasting my time.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > No, it *is* the point - you've proposed a solution, one of many, and
> > we need to see an actual sensible design for how the locking around
> > ctx->file should work correctly.
>
> I proposed to a solution for imbalance unlock, you
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:57:49AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > No, it *is* the point - you've proposed a solution, one of many, and
> > we need to see an actual sensible design for how the locking around
> > ctx->file should work correctly.
>
> I proposed to a solution for imbalance unlock, you
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:14:13PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:14:13PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:14:13PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This was my brief reaction too, this
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:14:13PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This was my brief reaction too, this
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> >
>> > This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
>> > use-after-free, and we should fix
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> >
>> > This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
>> > use-after-free, and we should fix
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
> > use-after-free, and we should fix the concurrency between the two
> > places in some correct way..
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:03:09AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
> > use-after-free, and we should fix the concurrency between the two
> > places in some correct way..
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
> use-after-free, and we should fix the concurrency between the two
> places in some correct way..
First of all, why use-after-free could trigger an imbalance unlock?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> This was my brief reaction too, this code path almost certainly has a
> use-after-free, and we should fix the concurrency between the two
> places in some correct way..
First of all, why use-after-free could trigger an imbalance unlock?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Cong,
>> >
>> > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
>> > it will reuse
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Cong,
>> >
>> > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
>> > it will reuse
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01:08AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Cong,
> > >
> > > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> > > it
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01:08AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Cong,
> > >
> > > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> > > it
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cong,
> >
> > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> > it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.
>
> Nope, check the
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:21:54PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cong,
> >
> > If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> > it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.
>
> Nope, check the
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.
Nope, check the assembly if you don't trust me, at least
my compiler always fetches ctx->file
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> Hi Cong,
>
> If the compiler optimizes the first line (mutex_lock) as you wrote,
> it will reuse "f" for the second line (mutex_unlock) too.
Nope, check the assembly if you don't trust me, at least
my compiler always fetches ctx->file
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:49:47PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> In ucma_event_handler() we lock the mutex like this:
>
> mutex_lock(>file->mut);
> ...
> mutex_unlock(>file->mut);
>
> which seems correct, but we could translate it into this:
>
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_lock(>mut);
> ...
> f =
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:49:47PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> In ucma_event_handler() we lock the mutex like this:
>
> mutex_lock(>file->mut);
> ...
> mutex_unlock(>file->mut);
>
> which seems correct, but we could translate it into this:
>
> f = ctx->file;
> mutex_lock(>mut);
> ...
> f =
24 matches
Mail list logo
