[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117161318.GP3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:13:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix data-race in wakeup
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 03:37:24PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * This field must not be in the scheduler word above due to wakelist
> >> + * queueing no longer being serialized by p->on_cpu. However:
> >> + *
> >> + * p->XXX = X; ttwu()
> >> + * schedule() if (p->on_rq && ..) // false
> >> + * smp_mb__after_spinlock(); if (smp_load_acquire(&p->on_cpu) && //true
> >> + * deactivate_task() ttwu_queue_wakelist())
> >> + * p->on_rq = 0; p->sched_remote_wakeup = Y;
> >> + *
> >> + * guarantees all stores of 'current' are visible before
> >> + * ->sched_remote_wakeup gets used, so it can be in this word.
> >> + */
> >
> > Isn't the control dep between that ttwu() p->on_rq read and
> > p->sched_remote_wakeup write "sufficient"?
>
> smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep() that is, since we need
> ->on_rq load => 'current' bits load + store
I don't think we need that extra barrier; after all, there will be a
complete schedule() between waking the task and it actually becoming
current.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists