mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] de_thread: Move notify_count write under lock
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 19:49:38 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1423154978.6933.21.camel@tkhai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423152711.6933.19.camel@tkhai>

Ah, sig->notify_count = zap_other_threads(tsk) is the same variable.

Sorry for the noise.

Thanks,
Kirill

В Чт, 05/02/2015 в 19:11 +0300, Kirill Tkhai пишет:
> В Чт, 05/02/2015 в 14:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
> > On 02/05, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >
> > > The write operation may be reordered with the setting of group_exit_task.
> > > If so, this fires in exit_notify().
> > 
> > How?
> > 
> > OK, yes, "sig->notify_count = -1" can be reordered with the last unlock,
> > but we do not care?
> > 
> > group_exit_task + notify_count is only checked under the same lock, and
> > "notify_count = -1" can't happen until de_thread() sees it is zero.
> > 
> > Could you explain why this is bad in more details?
> > 
> > 
> > > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > > @@ -920,10 +920,16 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > >  	if (!thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
> > >  		struct task_struct *leader = tsk->group_leader;
> > >
> > > -		sig->notify_count = -1;	/* for exit_notify() */
> > >  		for (;;) {
> > >  			threadgroup_change_begin(tsk);
> > >  			write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * We could set it once outside the for() cycle, but
> > > +			 * this requires to use SMP barriers there and in
> > > +			 * exit_notify(), because the write operation may
> > > +			 * be reordered with the setting of group_exit_task.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			sig->notify_count = -1;	/* for exit_notify() */
> > >  			if (likely(leader->exit_state))
> > >  				break;
> > >  			__set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE);
> > 
> > Perhaps something like this makes sense anyway to make the code more
> > clear, but in this case I'd suggest to set ->notify_count after we
> > check ->exit_state. And without the (afaics!) misleading comment...
> > 
> > Or I missed something?
> 
> Other solution is in the patch below.
> 
> Can't (sig->notify_count == -1) be visible earlier than tsk->signal->group_exit_task
> in exit_notify()?
> 
> tasklist_lock is held in exit_notify(), but de_thread() actions (notify_count and
> group_exit_task writes) are independent from it (another lock is held there).
> 
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index ad8798e..e3235b7 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  	if (!thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
>  		struct task_struct *leader = tsk->group_leader;
>  
> +		smp_wmb(); /* Pairs with smp_rmb() in exit_notify */
>  		sig->notify_count = -1;	/* for exit_notify() */
>  		for (;;) {
>  			threadgroup_change_begin(tsk);
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 6806c55..665fe0e 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -615,8 +615,10 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
>  		list_add(&tsk->ptrace_entry, &dead);
>  
>  	/* mt-exec, de_thread() is waiting for group leader */
> -	if (unlikely(tsk->signal->notify_count < 0))
> +	if (unlikely(tsk->signal->notify_count < 0)) {
> +		smp_rmb(); /* Pairs with smp_wmb() in de_thread */
>  		wake_up_process(tsk->signal->group_exit_task);
> +	}
>  	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &dead, ptrace_entry) {
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-05 16:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-05 13:13 Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-05 14:15   ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 14:27     ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 17:09       ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-05 16:11   ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 16:49     ` Kirill Tkhai [this message]
2015-02-05 17:18     ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-23 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov

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=1423154978.6933.21.camel@tkhai \
    --to=ktkhai@parallels.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®