From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D524C04AB5 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:10:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5915F276B0 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:10:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728408AbfFCQKN (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:10:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54662 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727501AbfFCQKN (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:10:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38B0731628E3; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:10:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.17.159]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B0785D6A9; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 16:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dhcp-27-174.brq.redhat.com (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 oleg@redhat.com; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:09:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:09:53 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jens Axboe , Qian Cai , akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@lst.de, gkohli@codeaurora.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix a crash in do_task_dead() Message-ID: <20190603160953.GA15244@redhat.com> References: <1559161526-618-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw> <20190530080358.GG2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <82e88482-1b53-9423-baad-484312957e48@kernel.dk> <20190603123705.GB3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190603124401.GB3463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190603124401.GB3463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.41]); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 16:10:12 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > It now also has concurrency on wakeup; but afaict that's harmless, we'll > get racing stores of p->state = TASK_RUNNING, much the same as if there > was a remote wakeup vs a wait-loop terminating early. > > I suppose the tracepoint consumers might have to deal with some > artifacts there, but that's their problem. I guess you mean that trace_sched_waking/wakeup can be reported twice if try_to_wake_up(current) races with ttwu_remote(). And ttwu_stat(). > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -1990,6 +1990,28 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags) > > unsigned long flags; > > int cpu, success = 0; > > > > + if (p == current) { > > + /* > > + * We're waking current, this means 'p->on_rq' and 'task_cpu(p) > > + * == smp_processor_id()'. Together this means we can special > > + * case the whole 'p->on_rq && ttwu_remote()' case below > > + * without taking any locks. > > + * > > + * In particular: > > + * - we rely on Program-Order guarantees for all the ordering, > > + * - we're serialized against set_special_state() by virtue of > > + * it disabling IRQs (this allows not taking ->pi_lock). > > + */ > > + if (!(p->state & state)) > > + goto out; > > + > > + success = 1; > > + trace_sched_waking(p); > > + p->state = TASK_RUNNING; > > + trace_sched_woken(p); ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ trace_sched_wakeup(p) ? I see nothing wrong... but probably this is because I don't fully understand this change. In particular, I don't really understand who else can benefit from this optimization... Oleg.