On 07/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> This commit adds synchronization with exiting tasks, so that RCU-tasks
> avoids waiting on tasks that no longer exist.
I don't understand this patch yet, but it seems that it adds more than
just synchronization with exiting tasks?
> + ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_tasks_holdout) = 1;
> + spin_unlock(&t->rcu_tasks_lock);
> + smp_mb(); /* Order ->rcu_tasks_holdout store before "if". */
> + if (t == current || !ACCESS_ONCE(t->on_rq) || is_idle_task(t)) {
> + smp_store_release(&t->rcu_tasks_holdout, 0);
> + goto next_thread;
> + }
This should avoid the race with schedule()->rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(),
right?
> - rcu_read_lock();
> - do_each_thread(g, t) {
> - if (t != current && ACCESS_ONCE(t->on_rq) &&
> - !is_idle_task(t)) {
> - t->rcu_tasks_holdout = 1;
Because before this patch the code looks obviously racy, a task can do
sleep(FOREVER) and block rcu_tasks_kthread() if it reads ->on_rq == 1
after rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch() was already called.
However, I am not sure this race is actually closed even after this
change... why rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch() can not miss
->rcu_tasks_holdout != 0 ?
OK, it seems that you are going to send the next version anyway, so
please ignore.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
