[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F1EF1E8.4090909@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:01:12 -0500
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org
CC: kosaki.motohiro@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, y-goto@...fujitsu.com,
mingo@...e.hu, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition
On 1/24/2012 5:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 16:07 -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I looked at scheduler code today briefly. now I'm afraid following code
>> have similar race.
>>
>>
>> if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
>> rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't following schenario be happen?
>>
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> deactivate_task()
>> task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
>> activate_task()
>> rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>>
>> schedule()
>> deactivate_task()
>> rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
>>
>> Totally, nr_uninterruptible wasn't incremented.
>>
>>
>> I'm still not sure. I need to read more sched code.
>
> You shouldn't ever set another tasks ->state.
I'm sorry. I haven't catch your point. I think following step is
valid kernel code. Do you disagree?
>> task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
>> schedule()
--
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