[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <jhjo8jvwzi7.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:32:16 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 17/11/20 16:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
Apologies for the messy train of thought; what I was trying to say is that
we have already the following, which AIUI is sufficient:
* p->XXX = X; ttwu()
* schedule() if (p->on_rq && ..) // false
* smp_mb__after_spinlock(); smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
* deactivate_task() ttwu_queue_wakelist()
* p->on_rq = 0; p->sched_remote_wakeup = Y;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists