From 78e4bc34e5d966cfd95f1238565afc399d56225c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:04:06 -0700 Subject: rcu: Fix and comment ordering around wait_event() It is all too easy to forget that wait_event() does not necessarily imply a full memory barrier. The case where it does not is where the condition transitions to true just as wait_event() starts execution. This is actually a feature: The standard use of wait_event() involves locking, in which case the locks provide the needed ordering (you hold a lock across the wake_up() and acquire that same lock after wait_event() returns). Given that I did forget that wait_event() does not necessarily imply a full memory barrier in one case, this commit fixes that case. This commit also adds comments calling out the placement of existing memory barriers relied on by wait_event() calls. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/rcu/tree.c') diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 5243ebea0fc1..abef9c358d47 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1533,6 +1533,7 @@ static void rcu_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_state *rsp) rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rsp->rda); if (rnp == rdp->mynode) __note_gp_changes(rsp, rnp, rdp); + /* smp_mb() provided by prior unlock-lock pair. */ nocb += rcu_future_gp_cleanup(rsp, rnp); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rnp->lock); cond_resched(); @@ -1577,6 +1578,7 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg) wait_event_interruptible(rsp->gp_wq, ACCESS_ONCE(rsp->gp_flags) & RCU_GP_FLAG_INIT); + /* Locking provides needed memory barrier. */ if (rcu_gp_init(rsp)) break; cond_resched(); @@ -1606,6 +1608,7 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_gp_kthread(void *arg) (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) && !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)), j); + /* Locking provides needed memory barriers. */ /* If grace period done, leave loop. */ if (!ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->qsmask) && !rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) -- cgit v1.2.1