[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309121527320.4089@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:33:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Libin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>
cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
eparis@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, john.stultz@...aro.org,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizefan@...wei.com,
jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com,
zhangdianfang@...wei.com, wangyijing@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] hrtimer: Fix invalid wakeup in do_nanosleep
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013, Libin wrote:
> If thread is preempted before calling set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE),
> and the other thread set the condition followed with wake_up_process. After
> that when this thread is re-scheduled, calling set_current_state to set itself
> as state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, if it is preempted again after that and before
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING), it triggers the invalid wakeup problem.
do_nanosleep() is only called from sys_nanosleep() and
sys_clock_nanosleep() user space interfaces.
So the task is not going to be woken up by some magic other thread
except by a signal. The latter is handled by the scheduler which will
return with state running. So what kind of problem are you trying to
solve?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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