From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/wait: Make interruptible exclusive waitqueue wakeups reliable
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:29:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191210072921.GB114501@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191209120852.GA5388@redhat.com>
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > long prepare_to_wait_event(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int state)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > long ret = 0;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> > if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> > /*
> > * Exclusive waiter must not fail if it was selected by wakeup,
> > * it should "consume" the condition we were waiting for.
> > *
> > * The caller will recheck the condition and return success if
> > * we were already woken up, we can not miss the event because
> > * wakeup locks/unlocks the same wq_head->lock.
> > *
> > * But we need to ensure that set-condition + wakeup after that
> > * can't see us, it should wake up another exclusive waiter if
> > * we fail.
> > */
> > list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
> > ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
>
> ...
>
> > I think we can indeed lose an exclusive event here, despite the comment
> > that argues that we shouldn't: if we were already removed from the list
>
> If we were already removed from the list and condition is true, we can't
> miss it, ret = -ERESTARTSYS won't be used. This is what this part of the
> comment above
>
> * The caller will recheck the condition and return success if
> * we were already woken up, we can not miss the event because
> * wakeup locks/unlocks the same wq_head->lock.
>
> tries to explain.
Yeah, indeed - it assumes that the condition is stable from wakeup to
wakee running - which as Linus said it must be, because otherwise
exclusive waiters couldn't reliably exit the wait loop.
So there's no bug. How about the clarifying comment below?
Thanks,
Ingo
kernel/sched/wait.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/wait.c b/kernel/sched/wait.c
index ba059fbfc53a..6783bac00b5c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
@@ -290,6 +290,11 @@ long prepare_to_wait_event(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, struct wait_queue_en
* But we need to ensure that set-condition + wakeup after that
* can't see us, it should wake up another exclusive waiter if
* we fail.
+ *
+ * In other words, if an exclusive waiter got here, then the
+ * waitqueue condition is and stays true and we are guaranteed
+ * to exit the waitqueue loop and will ignore the -ERESTARTSYS
+ * and return success.
*/
list_del_init(&wq_entry->entry);
ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-10 7:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-08 21:12 Fundamental race condition in wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ? Linus Torvalds
2019-12-09 9:18 ` [RFC PATCH] sched/wait: Make interruptible exclusive waitqueue wakeups reliable Ingo Molnar
2019-12-09 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-12-09 13:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-10 7:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-12-10 19:19 ` [PATCH] sched/wait: fix ___wait_var_event(exclusive) Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-17 12:39 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-09 18:06 ` [RFC PATCH] sched/wait: Make interruptible exclusive waitqueue wakeups reliable Linus Torvalds
2019-12-09 12:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-10 7:29 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2019-12-10 17:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-09 17:38 ` Fundamental race condition in wait_event_interruptible_exclusive() ? Oleg Nesterov
2019-12-09 18:03 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20191210072921.GB114501@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome