From: "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: 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: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 23:51:18 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea17c818-cd54-898c-6e6f-d17c1708115f@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180605163515.GB24053@redhat.com>
Hi,
Just for info , the patch that I have shared earlier with pi_lock
approach has been tested since last one month and no issue has been
observed,
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/25/189
Can we take this if it looks good?
Regards
Gaurav
On 6/5/2018 10:05 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>>> OK, but __kthread_parkme() can be preempted before it calls schedule(), so the
>>>> caller still can be migrated? Plus kthread_park_complete() can be called twice.
>>>
>>> Argh... I forgot TASK_DEAD does the whole thing with preempt_disable().
>>> Let me stare at that a bit.
>>
>> This should ensure we only ever complete when we read PARKED, right?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 8d59b259af4a..e513b4600796 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2641,7 +2641,7 @@ prepare_task_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
>> * past. prev == current is still correct but we need to recalculate this_rq
>> * because prev may have moved to another CPU.
>> */
>> -static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
>> +static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev, bool preempt)
>> __releases(rq->lock)
>> {
>> struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>> @@ -2674,7 +2674,7 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
>> *
>> * We must observe prev->state before clearing prev->on_cpu (in
>> * finish_task), otherwise a concurrent wakeup can get prev
>> - * running on another CPU and we could rave with its RUNNING -> DEAD
>> + * running on another CPU and we could race with its RUNNING -> DEAD
>> * transition, resulting in a double drop.
>> */
>> prev_state = prev->state;
>> @@ -2720,7 +2720,8 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
>> break;
>>
>> case TASK_PARKED:
>> - kthread_park_complete(prev);
>> + if (!preempt)
>> + kthread_park_complete(prev);
>
>
> Yes, but this won't fix the race decribed by Kohli...
>
> Plus this complicates the schedule() paths for the very special case, and to me
> it seems that all this kthread_park/unpark logic needs some serious cleanups...
>
> Not that I can suggest something better right now.
>
> Oleg.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-05 18:21 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 [this message]
2018-06-05 20:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-06-06 13:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=ea17c818-cd54-898c-6e6f-d17c1708115f@codeaurora.org \
--to=gkohli@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--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=oleg@redhat.com \
--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).