Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/19, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:17:31AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > It will wait for xxx_read_unlock() on reader's side. And for this reason
> > this idx in fact is not exactly wrong :)
> 
> I am not seeing this.
> 
> Let's assume sp->completed starts out zero.
> 
> o	CPU 0 starts executing xxx_read_lock(), but is interrupted
> 	(or whatever) just before the atomic_inc().  Upon return,
> 	it will increment sp->ctr[0].

Right.

> o	CPU 1 executes synchronize_xxx() to completion, which it
> 	can because CPU 0 has not yet incremented the counter.
> 	It waited on sp->ctr[0], and incremented sp->completed to 1.
> 
> o	CPU 0 returns from interrupt and completes xxx_read_lock(),
> 	but has incremented sp->ctr[0].
> 
> o	CPU 0 continues into its critical section, picking up a
> 	pointer to an xxx-protected data structure (or, in Jens's
> 	case starting an xxx-protected I/O).
> 
> o	CPU 1 executes another synchronize_xxx().  This completes
> 	immediately because it is waiting for sp->ctr[1] to go
> 	to zero, but CPU 0 incremented sp->ctr[0].  (Right?)

Right!

> o	CPU 1 continues, either freeing a data structure while
> 	CPU 0 is still referencing it, or, in Jens's case, completing
> 	an I/O barrier while there is still outstanding I/O.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

No, it is me.

Alan, Paul, thanks a lot for your patience!

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/