From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4E1DEE27.7030900@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 21:12:39 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E1B469A.8000703@domain.hid> <4E1B4AC0.80506@domain.hid> <4E1B4C19.2070205@domain.hid> <4E1B542B.2010906@domain.hid> <4E1B5638.1050005@domain.hid> <4E1B56E0.20109@domain.hid> <4E1B57D1.1070401@domain.hid> <4E1B5860.1000309@domain.hid> <4E1B5944.5030408@domain.hid> <4E1BEC9F.1020404@domain.hid> <4E1BF619.6010609@domain.hid> <4E1C2912.9050605@domain.hid> <4E1C2959.8080004@domain.hid> <4E1C2A2D.9090602@domain.hid> <4E1C2AA5.6060208@domain.hid> <4E1C2B44.5060907@domain.hid> <4E1C2B8F.5080700@domain.hid> <4E1C2F56.8020103@domain.hid> <4E1C302A.8050309@domain.hid> <4E1C3301.2030203@domain.hid> <4E1C3672.1030104@domain.hid> <4E1C36EE.70803@domain.hid> <4E1C38CE.7090202@domain.hid> <4E1C3A5D.3020700@domain.hid> <4E1C44B4.50106@domain.hid> <4E1C8508.5010400@domain.hid> <4E1C858A.7070403@domain.hid> <4E1C86A1.6030707@domain.hid> <4E1C87BB.7000307@domain.hid> <4E1DE646.1090900@domain.hid> <4E1DEC58.4000901@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4E1DEC58.4000901@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-git] Jan Kiszka : nucleus: Fix race between gatekeeper and thread deletion List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai core On 07/13/2011 09:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2011-07-13 20:39, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 07/12/2011 07:43 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2011-07-12 19:38, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> On 07/12/2011 07:34 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> On 2011-07-12 19:31, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>>> On 07/12/2011 02:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>> xnlock_put_irqrestore(&nklock, s); >>>>>>> xnpod_schedule(); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> @@ -1036,6 +1043,7 @@ redo: >>>>>>> * to process this signal anyway. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> if (rthal_current_domain == rthal_root_domain) { >>>>>>> + XENO_BUGON(NUCLEUS, xnthread_test_info(thread, XNATOMIC)); >>>>>> >>>>>> Misleading dead code again, XNATOMIC is cleared not ten lines above. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, I forgot to remove that line. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> if (XENO_DEBUG(NUCLEUS) && (!signal_pending(this_task) >>>>>>> || this_task->state != TASK_RUNNING)) >>>>>>> xnpod_fatal >>>>>>> @@ -1044,6 +1052,8 @@ redo: >>>>>>> return -ERESTARTSYS; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + xnthread_clear_info(thread, XNATOMIC); >>>>>> >>>>>> Why this? I find the xnthread_clear_info(XNATOMIC) right at the right >>>>>> place at the point it currently is. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Now we either clear XNATOMIC after successful migration or when >>>>> the signal is about to be sent (ie. in the hook). That way we can test >>>>> more reliably (TM) in the gatekeeper if the thread can be migrated. >>>> >>>> Ok for adding the XNATOMIC test, because it improves the robustness, but >>>> why changing the way XNATOMIC is set and clear? Chances of breaking >>>> thing while changing code in this area are really high... >>> >>> The current code is (most probably) broken as it does not properly >>> synchronizes the gatekeeper against a signaled and "runaway" target >>> Linux task. >>> >>> We need an indication if a Linux signal will (or already has) woken up >>> the to-be-migrated task. That task may have continued over its context, >>> potentially on a different CPU. Providing this indication is the purpose >>> of changing where XNATOMIC is cleared. >> >> What about synchronizing with the gatekeeper with a semaphore, as done >> in the first patch you sent, but doing it in xnshadow_harden, as soon as >> we detect that we are not back from schedule in primary mode? It seems >> it would avoid any further issue, as we would then be guaranteed that >> the thread could not switch to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE again before the >> gatekeeper is finished. > > The problem is that the gatekeeper tests the task state without holding > the task's rq lock (which is not available to us without a kernel > patch). That cannot work reliably as long as we accept signals. That's > why I'm trying to move state change and test under nklock. > >> >> What worries me is the comment in xnshadow_harden: >> >> * gatekeeper sent us to primary mode. Since >> * TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is unavailable to us without wrecking >> * the runqueue's count of uniniterruptible tasks, we just >> * notice the issue and gracefully fail; the caller will have >> * to process this signal anyway. >> */ >> >> Does this mean that we can not switch to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE at this >> point? Or simply that TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is not available for the >> business of xnshadow_harden? >> > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE is not available without patching the kernel's > scheduler for the reason mentioned in the comment (the scheduler becomes > confused and may pick the wrong tasks, IIRC). Does not using down/up in the taskexit event handler risk to cause the same issue? > > But I would refrain from trying to "improve" the gatekeeper design. I've > recently mentioned this to Philippe offlist: For Xenomai 3 with some > ipipe v3, we must rather patch schedule() to enable zero-switch domain > migration. Means: enter the scheduler, let it suspend current and pick > another task, but then simply escalate to the RT domain before doing any > context switch. That's much cheaper than the current design and > hopefully also less error-prone. So, do you want me to merge your for-upstream branch? -- Gilles.