lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kernel.org users] [KORG] Panics on master backend
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 03:57:39PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/26, Yong Zhang wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 03:54:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course it is not TASK_RUNNING, but it can be running or not.
> >
> > Yup. Before we go beyond ttwu_remote() in ttwu(), 'cpu' is not safe.
> > For example, wait_event() could be preempted in between.
> >
> > But after we go beyond ttwu_remote(), ->pi_lock will stabilize it.
>
> Yes.
>
> > So after we take Oleg's suggestion("task_cpu(p) == smp_processor_id()"),
> > things we left is just how to account stat correctly.
>
> Imho, we don't really care. This race is very unlikely,

Yup.

> and I think
> that the "wrong" cpu argument in ttwu_stat() is harmless.

Hmm, the affected accounting is sched_domain->ttwu_wake_remote.

> > @@ -2696,7 +2697,12 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > success = 1; /* we're going to change ->state */
> > cpu = task_cpu(p);
> >
> > - if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
> > + /*
> > + * read cpu for another time if ttwu_remote() success,
> > + * just to prevent task migration in between, otherwise
> > + * we maybe account stat incorrectly.
> > + */
> > + if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags, &cpu))
>
> I don't think this makes the things better. p->on_rq can be already
> false or ttwu_remote() can fail, in this case we still use the result
> of initial task_cpu().

Ah, My code (ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags, &cpu)) just catch the case:
task is dancing with 'p->on_rq == true'.

But forget the case: task has danced with 'p->on_rq == false' in the end.

So we should reread task_cpu(p) if 'p->on_cpu == true &&
__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW == y', but the code will be a little ugly
and it only aims to account stat more correctly.
We need some balance here :)
BTW, I don't think we should care much on the 'incorrect stat' either
if we don't make intolerable mistake.

Thanks,
Yong


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-29 04:33    [W:0.077 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site