[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150306153821.0ece2e37@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:38:21 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:39:44 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
ask concurrently with the llist iteration within sched_ttwu_pending().
>
> AFAIU, ttwu_queue_remote() is called from ttwu_queue() without holding
> the rq lock. So I'm wondering what prevents corruption of the wake_list
> in this situation.
I guess if it is on the wake_list, then the task's state is already
RUNNING. Any other task can switch a task's state to RUNNING but only
the task itself can switch it back to something else. If the task is on
the wake_list, it's state is already RUNNING, but it has not run yet.
That means any other wakeup will jump to the "goto out" and skip over
the ttwu_queue() call.
-- Steve
--
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