From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
dhillf@gmail.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Prevent unpark race which puts threads on the wrong cpu
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:56:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5167EF69.8080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1304112347390.21884@ionos>
Hi Thomas,
On 04/12/2013 04:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Srivatsa,
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 04/12/2013 02:17 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Wait for p->on_rq to be reset to 0, to ensure that the per-cpu
>>>> + * migration thread (which belongs to the stop_task sched class)
>>>> + * doesn't run until the cpu is actually onlined and the thread is
>>>> + * unparked.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!wait_task_inactive(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE))
>>>> + WARN_ON(1);
>>>
>>> Yay, we rely on TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state with a task which already has
>>> references outside the creation code.
>>
>> I doubt that. We have not even onlined the CPU, how would any else even
>> _know_ that we created this kthread??
>
> The problem is not only at the thread creation time. We have the same
> issue at offline/online and there we have a reference to that very
> thread.
>
Right. So our solutions differ in how that is handled, like this:
Yours: ensures that nobody can wakeup the parked thread, except the unpark
code.
Mine: ensures that nobody can make the parked thread leave its park loop
(even if it is woken up), except the unpark code.
Apart from this, everything else is mostly same - for eg., both the patches
depend on that wait_task_inactive() call, in order to make the migration
thread behave.
Either way, the purpose is served, so I'm fine with your solution.
(One of the reasons why I was confident of coming up with a working solution
without adding a new state was because I've worked on the freezer code before,
and IIRC, we have more or less similar problems there and we manage to deal
with it without having a dedicated TASK_FROZEN state. Anyway, nevermind... )
>>>> /**
>>>> * kthread_unpark - unpark a thread created by kthread_create().
>>>> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
>>>> @@ -337,18 +357,29 @@ void kthread_unpark(struct task_struct *k)
>>>> struct kthread *kthread = task_get_live_kthread(k);
>>>>
>>>> if (kthread) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Per-cpu kthreads such as ksoftirqd can get woken up by
>>>> + * other events. So after binding the thread, ensure that
>>>> + * it goes off the CPU atleast once, by parking it again.
>>>> + * This way, we can ensure that it will run on the correct
>>>> + * CPU on subsequent wakeup.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU, &kthread->flags)) {
>>>> + __kthread_bind(k, kthread->cpu);
>>>> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_IS_PARKED, &kthread->flags);
>>>
>>> And how is that f*cking different from the previous code?
>>>
>>> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
>>> wakeup(T) -> run on CPU1 (last cpu)
>>>
>>> switch_to(T)
>>>
>>> __kthread_bind(T, CPU2)
>>>
>>> clear(KTHREAD_IS_PARKED)
>>>
>>> leave loop due to !KTHREAD_IS_PARKED
>>
>> How?? The task will leave the loop only when we clear
>> SHOULD_PARK, not when we clear IS_PARKED. So it won't
>> leave the loop here. It will cause the kthread to
>> perform a fresh complete() for the waiting kthread_park()
>> on CPU0.
>
> You are right on that, but you tricked me into misreading your
> patch. Why? Simply because it is too complex for no reason.
>
;-)
>> No, the purpose of clear(IS_PARKED) followed by __kthread_park() is to
>> ensure that the task gets *descheduled* atleast once after we did the
>> kthread_bind(). And that's because we can't use set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to
>> migrate a running kthread (because the kthread could be the migration
>> thread). So instead, we use kthread_bind() and depend on sleep->wakeup
>> to put the task on the right CPU.
>
> Yeah, it's a nice workaround, though I really prefer a guaranteed well
> defined state over this wakeup/sleep/wakeup trickery, which also adds
> the additional cost of a wakeup/sleep cycle to the online operation.
>
Sure, no objections from me!
>>> TASK_PARKED is the very obvious and robust solution which fixes _ALL_
>>> of the corner cases, at least as far as I can imagine them. And
>>> robustness rules at least in my world.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree that it is robust and has clear semantics. No doubt about
>> that. So I won't insist on going with my suggestions.
>
> I'm glad, that we can agree on the robust solution :)
>
I'm glad too :-) Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-12 11:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-05 21:43 kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134! Dave Hansen
2013-04-06 7:12 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-06 8:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-07 9:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-07 9:50 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-08 9:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-08 11:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-04-08 12:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-09 14:38 ` [PATCH] kthread: Prevent unpark race which puts threads on the wrong cpu Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-09 15:55 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-09 18:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-09 19:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-09 20:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-09 20:54 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-10 8:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-10 10:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-10 19:41 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-11 10:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 10:48 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 11:43 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 11:59 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 12:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 12:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 13:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 18:07 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-11 19:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-10 14:03 ` [PATCH] CPU hotplug, smpboot: Fix crash in smpboot_thread_fn() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 8:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 10:19 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 19:16 ` [PATCH] kthread: Prevent unpark race which puts threads on the wrong cpu Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-11 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-11 21:19 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-04-12 10:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-04-12 11:26 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2013-04-15 19:49 ` Dave Hansen
2013-04-12 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-12 12:32 ` [tip:core/urgent] " tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5167EF69.8080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).