[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1irblu1wc.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:18:27 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Enhance kthread_stop to abort interruptible sleeps
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> writes:
> On 04/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> Hm, mm_release() clears ->vfork_done before complete().
Duh. Yes somehow I had a blind spot there. I clearly
need to handle that case.
>> mm_release:
>>
>> struct completion *vfork_done = tsk->vfork_done;
>>
>> if (vfork_done) {
>> tsk->vfork_done = NULL;
>> complete(vfork_done);
>> }
>>
>>
>> kthread_stop:
>>
>> set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_KTHREAD_STOP);
>> signal_wake_up(tsk, 1);
>>
>> // tsk exits, sets ->vfork_done == NULL
>>
>> wait_for_completion(tsk->vfork_done);
>
> Since the task_struct should be pinned anyway, I think kthread_stop()
> should do:
>
> vfork_done = tsk->vfork_done;
> barrier();
> if (vfork_done)
> wait_for_completion(vfork_done);
That should work, and this may explain what is going on. I was trying
to figure out how this could happen but if the thread is running on
another cpu there is a race and it may exit quickly enough to cause us
problems before we get to kthread_stop.
I don't know if this is the problem but it certainly needs to be fixed.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists