[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203375817.7619.73.camel@earth>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:03:37 +0100
From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rusty Russel <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
dmitry.adamushko@...il.com
Subject: [PATCH, RFC] kthread: (possibly) a missing memory barrier in
kthread_stop()
Hi,
[ description ]
Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()
'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();
and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().
on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() does not seem to
guarantee a full mb.
And 'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process()
checks for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.
(the patch is at the end of the message)
[ more detailed description ]
the current code might well be safe in case a to-be-stopped 'kthread'
task is _not_ running on another CPU at the moment when kthread_stop()
is called (in this case, 'rq->lock' will act as a kind of synch.
point/barrier).
Another case is as follows:
CPU#0:
...
while (kthread_should_stop()) {
if (condition)
schedule();
/* ... do something useful ... */ <--- EIP
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
}
so a 'kthread' task is about to call
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ...
(in the mean time)
CPU#1:
kthread_stop()
-> kthread_stop_info.k = k (*)
-> wake_up_process()
wake_up_process() looks like:
(try_to_wake_up)
IRQ_OFF
LOCK
old_state = p->state;
if (!(old_state & state)) (**)
goto out;
...
UNLOCK
IRQ_ON
let's suppose (*) and (**) are reordered
(according to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, neither IRQ_OFF nor
LOCK may prevent it from happening).
- the state is TASK_RUNNING, so we are about to return.
- CPU#1 is about to execute (*) (it's guaranteed to be done before
spin_unlock(&rq->lock) at the end of try_to_wake_up())
(in the mean time)
CPU#0:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();
here, kthread_stop_info.k is not yet visible
- schedule()
...
we missed a 'kthread_stop' event.
hum?
TIA,
---
From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()
'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();
and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().
on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() is not guaranteed to
act as a full mb.
'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process() checks
for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
index 0ac8878..5167110 100644
--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -211,6 +211,10 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
kthread_stop_info.k = k;
+
+ /* The previous store operation must not get ahead of the wakeup. */
+ smp_mb();
+
wake_up_process(k);
put_task_struct(k);
--
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