mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
	Michael Shaver <jmshaver@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Avoid that __wait_on_bit_lock() hangs
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:38:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4091e252-18d9-1795-de63-9fbc678aa6b1@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160808102213.GA6879@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 08/08/16 03:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That would be the exact scenario I drew a picture of, no? I'm still
> failing to see the hole there.
> 
> Please draw a picture like that and illustrate the hole.
 
Hi Peter,

This is the sequence of which I think that it leads to the missed wakeup:

Task 1                    Task 2                    Task 3                    Task 4

lock_page()
 ...
                          lock_page_killable()
                           __lock_page_killable()
                            __wait_on_bit_lock()
                             bit_wait_io()
                              io_schedule()
                               ...
                                                                              lock_page()
                                                                               __lock_page()
                                                                                __wait_on_bit_lock()
                                                                                 bit_wait_io()
                                                                                  io_schedule()
                                                                                   ...


                                                    (signal delivery to task 2)
                                                    try_to_wake_up(task2, ..., ...)
                                                    (try_to_wake_up() returns 1)

unlock_page()
 wake_up_page()
  __wake_up_bit()
   __wake_up(wq, TASK_NORMAL, 1, &key)
    __wake_up_common(wq, mode=TASK_NORMAL, nr_exclusive=1, 0, key)
     wake_bit_function()
      autoremove_wake_function()
       default_wake_function()
        try_to_wake_up() <- skips task 2 because task 3 already changed
                            the task state of task 2
       (autoremove_wake_function() does not do
        list_del_init(&wait->task_list))


                              bit_wait_io() returns -EINTR
                             abort_exclusive_wait() is called by __wait_on_bit_lock()


In the above sequence task 1 does not remove task 2 from the waitqueue
because task 3 had already woken up task 2. The result is that when task 2
calls abort_exclusive_wait() that task 2 is still on the waitqueue. With the
current implementation of abort_exclusive_wait() in the above scenario task
4 is not woken up although it should be woken up. Hence the patch that removes
the "else" keyword from abort_exclusive_wait().

Bart.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-08-08 14:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-03 16:35 Bart Van Assche
2016-08-03 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-03 18:56   ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-03 21:30     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-03 21:51       ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-04 14:09         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04 14:31           ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-05 17:41           ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-08 10:22             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-08 14:38               ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2016-08-08 16:20                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-08 18:31                   ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-09 17:14                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-09 18:48                       ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-09 23:10                         ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-10 10:45                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-10 16:01                           ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-10 16:27                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-10 19:58                           ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-11 17:36                             ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-12 16:16                               ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-12 16:27                                 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-12 22:47                                 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-13 16:32                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-15 23:39                                     ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-16 13:06                                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-16 16:54                                         ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-17 17:30                                           ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-13 17:07                                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-09 23:56                   ` Bart Van Assche
2016-08-10 10:57                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2016-08-10 11:03                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-04  0:05       ` Bart Van Assche

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=4091e252-18d9-1795-de63-9fbc678aa6b1@acm.org \
    --to=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=jmshaver@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®