Message-ID: <1351622752.4004.21.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irq_work: Fix racy IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag setting
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: anish kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:45:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1351622024.1504.13.camel@anish-Inspiron-N5050>
References: <1351611301-3520-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
	 <1351611301-3520-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
	 <1351622024.1504.13.camel@anish-Inspiron-N5050>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1750
Lines: 51

On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 03:33 +0900, anish kumar wrote:

> > CPU 0                                 CPU 1
> > 
> > data = something                     flags = IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> > smp_mb() (implicit with cmpxchg      smp_mb()
> >           on flags in claim)         execute_work (sees data from CPU
> > 0)
> > try to claim
> > 
> As I understand without the memory barrier proposed by you the situation
> would be as below:
> CPU 0                                 CPU 1
>  
> data = something                     flags = IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> smp_mb() (implicit with cmpxchg      execute_work (sees data from CPU 0)
>            on flags in claim)        
> _success_ in claiming and goes

Correct, because it would see the stale value of flags.

> ahead and execute the work(wrong?)
> 		                     cmpxchg cause flag to IRQ_WORK_BUSY
> 
> Now knows the flag==IRQ_WORK_BUSY
>                                 
> Am I right?

right.

> 
> Probably a stupid question.Why do we return the bool from irq_work_queue
> when no one bothers to check the return value?Wouldn't it be better if
> this function is void as used by the users of this function or am I
> looking at the wrong code.

Not a stupid question, as I was asking that to myself just earlier
today. But forgot to mention it as well. Especially, because it makes it
look like there's a bug in the code. Maybe someday someone will care if
their work was finished by itself, or some other CPU.

Probably should just nix the return value.

-- Steve


--
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/