Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake_up()

[Peter Zijlstra]

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.
--
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/