[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120117151242.GA13290@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:12:42 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 01/17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > --- linux-3.2.orig/kernel/exit.c
> > +++ linux-3.2/kernel/exit.c
> > @@ -1038,6 +1038,22 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
> >
> > preempt_disable();
> > exit_rcu();
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The setting of TASK_RUNNING by try_to_wake_up() may be delayed
> > + * when the following two conditions become true.
> > + * - There is race condition of mmap_sem (It is acquired by
> > + * exit_mm()), and
> > + * - SMI occurs before setting TASK_RUNINNG.
> > + * (or hypervisor of virtual machine switches to other guest)
> > + * As a result, we may become TASK_RUNNING after becoming TASK_DEAD
> > + *
> > + * To avoid it, we have to wait for releasing tsk->pi_lock which
> > + * is held by try_to_wake_up()
> > + */
> > + smp_mb();
> > + raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
>
> Hm, unlock_wait() is really nasty. Wouldnt the adoption of the
> -rt kernel's delayed task put logic solve most of these races?
How? The problem is that the exiting task can do the last schedule()
in TASK_RUNNING state, this breaks the TASK_DEAD logic in
finish_task_switch().
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