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


On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> 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
>
> task_rq_lock()
>
> p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>
>
> (from bottom of for loop)
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> for (;;) { (looping)
>
> if (timeout && !timeout->task)
>
>
> (now CPU implements)
> t->task = NULL
>
> task_rq_unlock();
>
> schedule() (with state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)

Yeah, that seems a real bug. You _always_ need to actually do the thing
that you wait for _before_ you want it up. That's what all the scheduling
primitives depend on - you can't wake people up first, and then set the
condition variable.

So if a rt_mutex depeds on something that is set inside the rq-lock, it
needs to get the task rw-lock in order to check it.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.096 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site