[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180911050449.GB4065@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:04:49 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Nathan March <nathan@...net>,
Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"Rong, Chen" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/6] tty/ldsem: Update waiter->task before waking up
reader
On (09/11/18 02:48), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> There is a couple of reports about lockup in ldsem_down_read() without
> anyone holding write end of ldisc semaphore:
> lkml.kernel.org/r/<20171121132855.ajdv4k6swzhvktl6@...-t540p.sh.intel.com>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/<20180907045041.GF1110@...o2-debian>
>
> They all looked like a missed wake up.
> I wasn't lucky enough to reproduce it, but it seems like reader on
> another CPU can miss waiter->task update and schedule again, resulting
> in indefinite (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) sleep.
Certainly, something suspicious is going on.
> @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ static void __ldsem_wake_readers(struct ld_semaphore *sem)
> tsk = waiter->task;
> smp_mb();
> waiter->task = NULL;
> + /* Make sure down_read_failed() will see !waiter->task update */
> + smp_wmb();
> wake_up_process(tsk);
Hmm. I think wake_up_process() executes a full memory barrier, because
it accesses task state.
> put_task_struct(tsk);
> }
> @@ -217,7 +219,7 @@ down_read_failed(struct ld_semaphore *sem, long count, long timeout)
> for (;;) {
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
I think that set_current_state() also executes memory barrier. Just
because it accesses task state.
> - if (!waiter.task)
> + if (!READ_ONCE(waiter.task))
> break;
> if (!timeout)
> break;
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists