[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160803213006.GA11712@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 23:30:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Avoid that __wait_on_bit_lock() hangs
Hi Bart,
I too can't understand the problem. Perhaps you missed the fact that
abort_exclusive_wait() does everything under wait_queue_head_t->lock ?
On 08/03, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> try_to_wake_up() locks task_struct.pi_lock but abort_exclusive_wait() not.
> My assumption is that the following sequence of events leads to the lockup
> that I had mentioned in the description of my patch:
> * try_to_wake_up() is called for the task that will execute
> abort_exclusive_wait().
> * After try_to_wake_up() has checked task_struct.state and before
> autoremove_wake_function() has tried to remove the task from the wait
> queue, abort_exclusive_wait() is executed for the same task.
But we do not care if we race with another try_to_wake_up(), or even with
another exclusive wake_up_nr(wq)/whatever unless wq is the same.
And if this wq is the same, then wake_up_nr() will do try_to_wake_up/autoremove
either before or after abort_exclusive_wait(), wake_up_nr() takes the same
wq->lock.
And this means that abort_exclusive_wait() can't be called "After try_to_wake_up()"
and "before autoremove_wake_function()".
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists