[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PATCH? hrtimer_wakeup: fix a theoretical race wrt rt_mutex_slowlock()

    On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > That said, since "task->state" in only tested _inside_ the runqueue lock,
    > there is no race that I can see. Since we've gotten the runqueue lock in
    > order to even check task-state, the processor that _sets_ task state must
    > not only have done the "spin_lock()", it must also have done the
    > "spin_unlock()", and _that_ will not allow either the timeout or the task
    > state to haev leaked out from under it (because that would imply that the
    > critical region leaked out too).
    > So I don't think the race exists anyway - the schedule() will return
    > immediately (because it will see TASK_RUNNING), and we'll just retry.

    This whole situation is very theoretical, but I think this actually can
    happen *theoretically*.

    OK, the spin_lock doesn't do any serialization, but the unlock does. But
    the problem can happen before the unlock. Because of the loop.

    CPU 1 CPU 2


    p->state = TASK_RUNNING;

    (from bottom of for loop)

    for (;;) { (looping)

    if (timeout && !timeout->task)

    (now CPU implements)
    t->task = NULL


    schedule() (with state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)

    Again, this is very theoretical, and I don't even think that this can
    happen if you tried to make it. But I guess if hardware were to change in
    the future with the same rules that we have today with barriers, that this
    can be a race.

    -- Steve

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-05 23:57    [W:0.020 / U:5.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site