(s/mm-commits/lkml, cc Steven and Linus). On 02/22, Andrew Morton wrote: > > From: Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > We must ensure that kthread_stop_info.k has been updated before kthread's > wakeup. This is required to properly support the use of kthread_should_stop() > in the main loop of kthread. > > wake_up_process() doesn't imply a full memory barrier, > so we add an explicit one.
I tried to raise the similar issue twice without success. > --- a/kernel/kthread.c~kthread-add-a-missing-memory-barrier-to-kthread_stop > +++ a/kernel/kthread.c > @@ -53,6 +53,19 @@ static struct kthread_stop_info kthread_ > * When someone calls kthread_stop() on your kthread, it will be woken > * and this will return true. You should then return, and your return > * value will be passed through to kthread_stop(). > + * > + * In order to safely use kthread_stop() for kthread, there is a requirement > + * on how its main loop has to be orginized. Namely, the sequence of > + * events that lead to kthread being blocked (schedule()) has to be > + * ordered as follows: > + * > + * - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > + * - if (kthread_should_stop()) break; > + * - schedule() or similar. > + * > + * set_current_state() implies a full memory barrier. kthread_stop() > + * has a matching barrier right after an update of kthread_stop_info.k > + * and before kthread's wakeup. > */ > int kthread_should_stop(void) > { > @@ -211,6 +224,15 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k) > > /* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */ > kthread_stop_info.k = k; > + > + /* > + * We must ensure that kthread_stop_info.k has been updated before > + * the following wakeup. This is required to properly support the use > + * of kthread_should_stop() in the main loop of kthread > + * (see description of kthread_should_stop() for more details). > + */ > + smp_mb(); > + > wake_up_process(k); > put_task_struct(k); I think we should fix wake_up_process() instead. Please look at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118503598307267 and at this thread: http://marc.info/?t=116275561700001 In short: wake_up_process() doesn't imply mb(), this means that _in theory_ the commonly used code like set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); if (CONDITION) return; schedule(); is racy wrt CONDITION = 1; wake_up_process(p); I'll be happy to be wrong though, please correct me. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/