lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake_up()
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:47:14PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> But since I already wrote v2 yesterday, let me show it anyway. Perhaps
> you will notice something wrong immediately...
>
> So, once again, this patch adds the ugly "goto" into schedule(). OTOH,
> it removes the ugly spin_unlock_wait(pi_lock).

But schedule() is called _far_ more often than exit(). It would be
really good not to have to do that.

> TASK_DEAD can die. The only valid user is schedule_debug(), trivial to
> change. The usage of TASK_DEAD in task_numa_fault() is wrong in any case.
>
> In fact, I think that the next change can change exit_schedule() to use
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE, and then we can simply remove the TASK_DEAD check in
> schedule_debug().

So you worry about concurrent wakeups vs setting TASK_DEAD and thereby
loosing it, right?

Would not something like:

spin_lock_irq(&current->pi_lock);
__set_current_state(TASK_DEAD);
spin_unlock_irq(&current->pi_lock);

Not be race free and similarly expensive to the smp_mb() we have there
now?

> - BUG();
> - /* Avoid "noreturn function does return". */
> - for (;;)
> - cpu_relax(); /* For when BUG is null */


> +void exit_schedule(void)
> +{
> + current->state = TASK_DEAD; /* TODO: kill TASK_DEAD altogether */
> + task_rq(current)->prev_dead = true;
> + __schedule();
> + BUG();

you lost that for loop.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-02 20:21    [W:0.264 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site