[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] NE2000 wrote:
> Hello!
> > No, that code is correct, provided (current->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> > on entry. If it isn't, there's a race window which can cause
> > lost wakeups. As a check you could add:
> >
> > if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)) == 0)
> > BUG();
> Though it really cannot happen and really happens, as we have seen... 8)
> In any case, Andrew, where is the race, when we enter in sleeping state?
> Wakeup is not lost, it is just not required when we are not going
> to schedule and force task to running state.
> I still do not see how it is possible that task runs in sleeping state.
> Apparently, set_current_state is forgotten somewhere. Do you see, where? 8)

OK, there are a few areas which look fishy.

Calling __lock_sock when we're getting ready to wait
on a different waitqueue looks like a rather risky area.
We have a single task which is on two waitqueues.

Consider the case of tcp_data_wait():

if (...) /* Suppose this evaluates to false */

/* Window 1: What does a wake_up(sk->sleep) do here? */
/* Window 2: Bad things happen here */

If someone does a wakeup(sk->sleep) in Window 2 in
__lock_sock() the wakeup code will think that the
task is sleeping on sk->sleep in state
when in fact it is not. So a wakeup which _should_ have gone to
a different exclusive task actually goes to this one. This is
fantastically hard to hit because of the direction of the
waitqueue scan.

If the wakeup on sk->sleep happens during Window 1
it will be completely lost, but that's OK because
this task is not yet TASK_EXCLUSIVE (providing the
write ordering behaves as we want?)

If a wakeup on sk->lock.wq happens during Window 1
it will be completely lost.

wait_for_connect() and wait_for_tcp_memory() play similar
games with lock_sock() whereby they can appear to be on
two waitqueues at the same time. And again, because
lock_sock() uses TASK_EXCLUSIVE a wake_up on sk->sleep
could choose this task instead of a TASK_EXCLUSIVE task
which is _really_ sleeping on sk->sleep.

Now, this may not be a problem in practise, and in fact the
above may not be bugs because I missed something. But I suggest you
have a think about it. My brain is starting to hurt.

But none of these explain Jorge's problem. How he got to where
he did in !TASK_RUNNING. Plus the possible lock_sock problems
just look too damn hard to hit to explain Jorge's repeatability.

It may be useful to put a Pentium hardware watchpoint onto
current->state. Does kdb support those?

Can sock_fasync() be called when we're on a waitqueue, not in
state TASK_RUNNING and prior to schedule()?

inet_wait_for_connect() is OK.
wait_for_tcp_connect() is OK.
tcp_close() is OK.

Also, are you sure that all occurrences of

current->state = <whatever>;

are still safe on weakly ordered CPUs? (Not that this
would explain Jorge's problem).

hmm.. khttpd tries to do wake-one, but
interruptible_sleep_on_timeout() confounds it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.107 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site