[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx=CwNCg08HUeyYWc-WWuPkQBXVJDvHfrBjraTy-3MRWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:25:03 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
syzbot+4a7438e774b21ddd8eca@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix another oops in wb_workfn()
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:21 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> Since multiple addresses share bit_wait_table[256], isn't it possible that
> cgwb_start_shutdown() prematurely returns false due to wake_up_bit() by
> hash-conflicting addresses (i.e. not limited to clear_and_wake_up_bit() from
> wb_shutdown())? I think that we cannot be sure without confirming that
> test_bit(WB_shutting_down, &wb->state) == false after returning from schedule().
Right.
That's _always_ true, btw. Something else entirely could have woken
you up. TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE does not mean "nothing else wakes me", it
just means "_signals_ don't wake me".
So every single sleep always needs to be in a loop. Always.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists