From: Aurelien Degremont <aurelien.degremont@cea.fr>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Jacques-Charles Lafoucriere <jc.lafoucriere@cea.fr>,
Bruno Faccini <bruno.faccini@bull.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix deadlock in RPC scheduling code.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:16:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603131516.QAA19564@styx.bruyeres.cea.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1142260115.7996.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>Hmmm... With those constraints, it seems difficult to be able to modify
>>the current rpc_wake_up_task() function...
> That is the price of optimisation in this case.
Optimisation against potential race (see below) ?
> Your deadlock problem resulted in __rpc_wake_up_task() iterating forever
> on the same task since the while() loop would not ever exit before it
> was empty. By changing the iteration scheme into one where we only try
> to wake up each task once, we allow rpc_wake_up()/rpc_wake_up_status()
> to complete.
IMO, the code will still hang because, the list_for_each_entry_safe()
loop will never complete, even with the new scheme. Indeed, the loop
call __rpc_wake_up_task() will try to set RPC_TASK_WAKEUP bit, but it is
already set by rpc_wake_up_task(), so it hangs...
A: run rpc_wake_up_task(task foo)
A: set RPC_TASK_WAKEUP bit
--interrupt--
B: run rpc_wake_up()
B: grab queue->lock
B: enter the list_for_each_entry_safe() loop
B: run __rpc_wake_up_task(task foo)
B: wait for RPC_TASK_WAKEUP bit
A: wait for queue->lock
-> deadlock ?
--
Aurelien Degremont
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-13 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-09 10:35 Aurelien Degremont
2006-03-09 14:40 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-10 15:10 ` Aurelien Degremont
2006-03-10 15:24 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-13 10:07 ` Aurelien Degremont
2006-03-13 14:28 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-03-13 15:16 ` Aurelien Degremont [this message]
2006-03-13 16:08 ` Trond Myklebust
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=200603131516.QAA19564@styx.bruyeres.cea.fr \
--to=aurelien.degremont@cea.fr \
--cc=bruno.faccini@bull.net \
--cc=jc.lafoucriere@cea.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
/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®