[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160830141321.GB2794@worktop>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:13:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > /*
> > * Ensure we load p->on_rq _after_ p->state, otherwise it would
> > * be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck
> > * in smp_cond_load_acquire() below.
> > *
> > * sched_ttwu_pending() try_to_wake_up()
> > * [S] p->on_rq = 1; [L] P->state
> > * UNLOCK rq->lock
> > *
> > * schedule() RMB
> > * LOCK rq->lock
> > * UNLOCK rq->lock
> > *
> > * [task p]
> > * [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE [L] p->on_rq
> > *
> > * Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the
> > * last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task
> > * current.
> > */
>
> Confused... how this connects to UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock? A LOAD can
> leak into the critical section.
How so? That LOCK+UNLOCK which is leaky, UNLOCK+LOCK is a read/write
barrier (just not an MB because it lacks full transitivity).
> But context switch should imply mb() we can rely on?
Not sure it should, on x86 switch_mm does a CR3 write and that is
serializing, but switch_to() doesn't need to do anything iirc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists