[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210614154246.GB13677@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:42:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mgorman@...e.de,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic
Hi Peter, sorry for delay,
On 06/11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> +/* Recursion relies on tail-call optimization to not blow away the stack */
> +static bool __frozen(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + if (p->state == TASK_FROZEN)
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * If stuck in TRACED, and the ptracer is FROZEN, we're frozen too.
> + */
> + if (task_is_traced(p))
> + return frozen(rcu_dereference(p->parent));
Why does it use frozen(), not __frozen() ?
This looks racy, p->parent can resume this task and then enter
__refrigerator().
Plus this task can be SIGKILL'ed even if it is traced.
> + /*
> + * If stuck in STOPPED and the parent is FROZEN, we're frozen too.
> + */
> + if (task_is_stopped(p))
> + return frozen(rcu_dereference(p->real_parent));
(you could use ->parent in this case too and unify this check with the
"traced" case above)
I don't understand. How this connects to ->parent or ->real_parent?
SIGCONT can come from anywhere and wake this stopped task up?
I guess you do this to avoid freezable_schedule() in ptrace/signal_stop,
and we can't use TASK_STOPPED|TASK_FREEZABLE, it should not run after
thaw()... But see above, we can't rely on __frozen(parent).
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists