[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200629140245.GB20323@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:02:46 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: wait_on_page_bit_common(TASK_KILLABLE, EXCLUSIVE) can miss
wakeup?
On 06/29, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> prepare_to_wait_event() has a pretty good pattern (and comment), I would
> favour using that (test the signal when inserting on the waitqueue).
>
> @@ -1133,6 +1133,15 @@ static inline int wait_on_page_bit_common(wait_queue_head_t *q,
> for (;;) {
> spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
>
> + if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> + /* Must not lose an exclusive wake up, see
> + * prepare_to_wait_event comment */
> + list_del_init(&wait->entry);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&q->lock);
> + ret = -EINTR;
Basically this is what my patch in the 1st email does. But note that we can't
just set "ret = -EINTR" here, we will need to clear "ret" if test_and_set_bit()
below succeeds. That is why I used another "int intr" variable.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists