Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755264Ab0AUKxX (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:53:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755253Ab0AUKxU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:53:20 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.158]:11954 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755178Ab0AUKxT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:53:19 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=IlKEW1sJm+iwvMbV9npnb3uHtR1kx8TA4cmQVoZvI5PGVCBY17vYyO9GDNgk79q20N dYSHtdDr9Y4PV0OvNOOKimuKzOg37UIiXzDAG696KuZwAvBOcsK3DuL2l96+VvRd4yOL apY58knOC6xTfYFEzSFH2QWWaRxa9tJ3MXJuA= Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:53:14 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Julia Lawall Cc: Steven Rostedt , LKML , kernel-janitors , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: Lots of bugs with current->state = TASK_*INTERRUPTIBLE Message-ID: <20100121105311.GB5017@nowhere> References: <1263932978.31321.53.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1263935333.4561.26.camel@frodo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1488 Lines: 43 On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:47:41AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > What about something like the following (drivers/macintosh/adb.c): > > add_wait_queue(&state->wait_queue, &wait); > current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE; > > for (;;) { > req = state->completed; > if (req != NULL) > state->completed = req->next; > else if (atomic_read(&state->n_pending) == 0) > ret = -EIO; > if (req != NULL || ret != 0) > break; > > if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) { > ret = -EAGAIN; > break; > } > if (signal_pending(current)) { > ret = -ERESTARTSYS; > break; > } > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&state->lock, flags); > schedule(); > spin_lock_irqsave(&state->lock, flags); > } > > current->state = TASK_RUNNING; > remove_wait_queue(&state->wait_queue, &wait); > > There is a call to schedule eventually after the first current->state > assignment, but it is not right after. Looks fine as spin_unlock includes a memory barrier, IIRC. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/