[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160803181128.GH6879@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 20:11:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Michael Shaver <jmshaver@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Avoid that __wait_on_bit_lock() hangs
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:35:03AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> If try_to_wakeup() reads the task state before abort_exclusive_wait()
> sets the task state and if autoremove_wake_function() is called after
> abort_exclusive_wait() has removed a task from a wait list then the
> cascading mechanism for exclusive wakeups in abort_exclusive_wait()
> won't be triggered. Avoid this by serializing the task state change
> in abort_exclusive_wait() and try_to_wakeup().
I'm dense.. what!?
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
__lock_page_killable()
__wait_on_bit_lock()
bit_wait_io()
schedule()
__wake_up_bit()
__wake_up(.nr_exclusive=1)
spin_lock(&q->lock)
__wake_up_common()
autoremove_wake_func()
try_to_wake_up(p, TASK_NORMAL)
list_del_init(&wait->task_list)
spin_unlock(&q->lock)
complete_signal(p)
signal_wake_up(p, 1)
sigaddset(&p->pending.signal, SIGKILL)
try_to_wake_up(p, TASK_WAKEKILL)
if (signal_pending_state(TASK_KILLABLE))
return -EINTR;
abort_exclusive_wait()
__set_current_state(RUNNING)
spin_lock(q->lock)
if (!list_empty()) /* empty */
else if (waitqueue_active()) /* pending ? */
__wake_up_locked_key(q, mode, key)
spin_unlock(q->lock)
That seems to do the right thing, so clearly I misunderstand. Please
clarify.
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -277,10 +277,17 @@ void abort_exclusive_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
> unsigned int mode, void *key)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> + long wake_up;
> +
> + /* Serialize against try_to_wake_up() */
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags);
> + wake_up = current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (wake_up)
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags);
>
> - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> - if (!list_empty(&wait->task_list))
> + if (wake_up)
> list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> else if (waitqueue_active(q))
> __wake_up_locked_key(q, mode, key);
That just feels wrong,.. very wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists