lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: keventd_create_kthread
Date
In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402190205040.16515@devserv.devel.redhat.com> you write:
> The current wait_task_inactive() code seems to be OK on x86.
> Context-switching cannot be preempted. The goal of wait_task_inactive() is
> to wait for the task to unschedule on a CPU. If that's due to preempt then
> it's due to preempt.

No, because it can come back at any time 8(

> that in any modern interface. Why does keventd_create_kthread() need
> wait_task_inactive()?

Um, the code was taken from sched.c to kthread:

2.6.3 migration_thread():
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();

2.6.3 migration_call():
kernel_thread(migration_thread, &startup, CLONE_KERNEL);
wait_for_completion(&startup.startup_done);
wait_task_inactive(startup.task);

startup.task->thread_info->cpu = cpu;
startup.task->cpus_allowed = cpumask_of_cpu(cpu);


So, if the migration thread has been preempted immediately before
schedule(), wait_task_inactive returns, but it can come back from
preempt while we're messing with startup.task->thread_info->cpu.

Now, the latter part is wrapped in kthread_bind(), which should really
be doing the wait_task_inactive itself (doing it in kthread_create is
overzealous). But the race is still there.

Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.
--
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site