linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@kernel.org,
	bigeasy@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:51:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180606135115.GA4609@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605201316.GZ12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 06/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Also, I think we still need TASK_PARKED as a special state for that.

I think it would be nice to kill the TASK_PARKED state altogether. But I don't
know how. I'll try to look at this code later, but I am not sure I will find a
way to cleanup it...


> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -177,12 +177,24 @@ void *kthread_probe_data(struct task_struct *task)
>  static void __kthread_parkme(struct kthread *self)
>  {
>  	for (;;) {
> -		set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
> +		/*
> +		 * TASK_PARKED is a special state; we must serialize against
> +		 * possible pending wakeups to avoid store-store collisions on
> +		 * task->state.
> +		 *
> +		 * Such a collision might possibly result in the task state
> +		 * changin from TASK_PARKED and us failing the
> +		 * wait_task_inactive() in kthread_park().
> +		 */
> +		set_special_state(TASK_PARKED);

Agreed,

>  		if (!test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &self->flags))
>  			break;
> +
> +		complete_all(&self->parked);
>  		schedule();
>  	}
>  	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +	reinit_completion(&self->parked);

But how can we know that all the callers of kthread_park() have already returned
from wait_for_completion() ?

Oh. The very fact that __kthread_parkme() does complete_all() proves that we need
some serious cleanups. In particular, I think that kthread_park() on a parked kthread
must not be possible.

Just look at this code. It looks as if __kthread_parkme() can race with _unpark()
and thus we need this wait-event-like loop.

But if it can race with _unpark() then kthread_park() can block forever.


For the start, can't we change kthread_park()

	-	set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &kthread->flags);
	+ 	if (test_and_set_bit(...))
	+		return -EAGAIN;

and s/complete_all/complete/ in __kthread_parkme() ?

IIUC, this will only affect smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() which can hit
an already parked thread, but it doesn't need to wait.

And it seems that smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() in turn needs some cleanups.
Hmm. and its single user: kernel/watchdog.c.

And speaking of watchdog.c, can't we simply kill the "watchdog/%u" threads? This is
off-topic, but can't watchdog_timer_fn() use stop_one_cpu_nowait(watchdog) ?

And I really think we should unexport kthread_park/unpark(), only smpboot_thread_fn()
should use them. kthread() should not play with __kthread_parkme(). And even
KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK must die, I mean it should live in struct smp_hotplug_thread,
not in struct kthread.

OK, this is off-topic too.

In short, I think this patch is fine but I didn't read it carefully, will try tomorrow.

And, let me repeat, can't we avoid complete_all() ?

Oleg.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-06 13:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-25  8:33 [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup Gaurav Kohli
2018-04-25 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26  4:04   ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-04-26  9:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26  8:41   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26  8:57     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 15:53       ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-04-30 11:17         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01  7:50           ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 10:18             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 10:40               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 10:40               ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 11:31                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-01 11:46                   ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 13:19                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-02  5:15                       ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-02  8:20                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-02 10:13                           ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-07 11:09                             ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-07 11:23                               ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 11:13                                 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 15:08                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-06-05 15:22                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05 15:40                                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-05 16:35                                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-06-05 18:21                                           ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-06-05 20:13                                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 13:51                                             ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2018-06-06 15:03                                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 15:04                                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 15:22                                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 18:59                                               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-07  8:30                                                 ` Kohli, Gaurav
2018-05-01 10:44               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 16:02     ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-26 16:18     ` Oleg Nesterov
2018-04-30 11:20       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-30 11:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-28  6:43 ` [lkp-robot] [kthread/smpboot] cad8e99675: inconsistent{IN-HARDIRQ-W}->{HARDIRQ-ON-W}usage kernel test robot

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=20180606135115.GA4609@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=gkohli@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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).