[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111226171151.GA4472@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:11:51 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Motohiro Kosaki <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special
condition
On 12/26, Yasunori Goto wrote:
>
> >
> > IIRC, this was already discussed a bit. Say, try_to_wake_up(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> > can wakeup a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE task if it temporary sets INTERRUPTIBLE but
> > doesn't call schedule() in this state.
>
> Oleg-san,
>
> Could you point the discussion?
> I don't understand yet how it occurred...
Suppose that the task T does
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();
try_to_wake_up(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) in between can observe this task
in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. Then it can set RUNNING/WAKING after T
sets ->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
For example, this is possibly if T simply does wait_event() twice when
the the 1st wait_event() doesn't sleep.
Basically this is the same race you described, but I think you found
the case when we can't tolerate the spurious wakeup.
Oleg.
--
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