[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvycs7DNu5o5QY1WwTPfS6cTTykTh-91n9TQZ7yP_ADr4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 23:56:13 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
"zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: check kthread_should_stop() after the setting of
task state
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:58 AM Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com> wrote:
> Oh, you're thinking about influence by schedule(), I get it. But I think
> it still works. Because the ubi_thread is still on runqueue, it will be
> scheduled to execute later anyway.
It will not get woken. This is the problem.
>
> op state of
> ubi_thread on runqueue
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE Yes
> if (kthread_should_stop()) // not satisfy
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE Yes
> kthread_stop:
> wake_up_process
> ttwu_queue
> ttwu_do_activate
> ttwu_do_wakeup TASK_RUNNING Yes
> schedule
> __schedule(false)
>
> // prev->state is TASK_RUNNING, so we cannot move it from runqueue by
> deactivate_task(). So just pick next task to execute, ubi_thread is
> still on runqueue and will be scheduled to execute later.
It will be in state TASK_RUNNING only if your check is reached.
If kthread_stop() is called *before* your code:
+ if (kthread_should_stop()) {
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ break;
+ }
...everything is fine.
But there is still a race window between your if
(kthread_should_stop()) and schedule() in the next line.
So if kthread_stop() is called right *after* the if and *before*
schedule(), the task state is still TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
--> schedule() will not return unless the task is explicitly woken,
which does not happen.
Before your patch, the race window was much larger, I fully agree, but
your patch does not cure the problem
it just makes it harder to hit.
And using mdelay() to verify such a thing is also tricky because
mdelay() will influence the task state.
--
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists