From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx, kproc and *double sleep*
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:01:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8ebe5bdc32ec6d9b7efc27b0b0b3697c@hamnavoe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C13311B.4050704@bouyapop.org>
Philippe said:
> Again, the change I proposed is not about sleep/wakeup/postnote, but
> because wakeup() is ready()'ing the awakened process while the mach on
> which sleep() runs is still holdind a pointer (up) to the awakened
> process and can later (in schedinit()) assumes it is safe to access
> (up)->state. Because of this, schedinit() can tries to call ready() on
> (up), because because (up)->state may have been changed to Running by
> a third mach entity.
and I tried to summarize:
> It's a race between a process in sleep() returning to the scheduler on
> cpu A, and the same process being readied and rescheduled on cpu B
> after the wakeup.
But after further study of proc.c, I now believe we were both wrong.
A process on the ready queue can only be taken off the queue and
scheduled by calling dequeueproc(), which contains this:
/*
* p->mach==0 only when process state is saved
*/
if(p == 0 || p->mach){
unlock(runq);
return nil;
}
So the process p can only be scheduled (i.e. p->state set to Running)
if p->mach==nil.
The only place p->mach gets set to nil is in schedinit(), *after*
the test for p->state==Running.
This seems to mean there isn't a race after all, and Philippe's
thought experiment is impossible.
Am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-13 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-11 14:06 Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 14:40 ` ron minnich
2010-06-11 14:49 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-11 14:54 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 15:03 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-11 15:22 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 15:25 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 14:59 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 17:11 ` Bakul Shah
2010-06-11 17:31 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 18:34 ` Bakul Shah
2010-06-11 18:36 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-11 18:51 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-12 7:02 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-12 9:22 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-12 11:51 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-13 13:01 ` Richard Miller [this message]
2010-06-13 13:43 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-13 14:26 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-13 16:20 ` ron minnich
2010-06-13 16:34 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-13 17:23 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-13 18:03 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-14 19:15 ` Charles Forsyth
2010-06-14 19:36 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-15 2:57 ` ron minnich
2010-06-15 3:36 ` ron minnich
2010-06-12 20:15 ` Richard Miller
2010-06-12 20:30 ` ron minnich
2010-06-12 22:15 ` Charles Forsyth
2010-06-13 0:04 ` ron minnich
2010-06-13 13:32 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-13 22:34 ` Charles Forsyth
2010-06-13 9:00 ` Richard Miller
2010-06-11 14:49 ` Philippe Anel
2010-06-11 14:59 ` ron minnich
2010-06-11 15:02 ` ron minnich
2010-06-11 15:04 ` erik quanstrom
2010-06-11 15:43 ` ron minnich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8ebe5bdc32ec6d9b7efc27b0b0b3697c@hamnavoe.com \
--to=9fans@hamnavoe.com \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).