mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 19:48:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55241851.7060704@colorfullife.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1428419030-20030-4-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

On 04/07/2015 05:03 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
> the info->lock. With this change, the waiter is woken up once it is
> "ready" which means its state is STATE_READY and it does not need to loop
> on SMP if it is still in STATE_PENDING.
> In the timeout case we still need to grab the info->lock to verify the state.
>
> This change should also avoid the introduction of preempt_disable() in
> -RT which avoids a busy-loop which pools for the STATE_PENDING -> STATE_READY
> change if the waiter has a higher priority compared to the waker.

> @@ -909,9 +905,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mq_unlink, const char __user *, u_name)
>    * bypasses the message array and directly hands the message over to the
>    * receiver.
>    * The receiver accepts the message and returns without grabbing the queue
> - * spinlock. Therefore an intermediate STATE_PENDING state and memory barriers
> - * are necessary. The same algorithm is used for sysv semaphores, see
> - * ipc/sem.c for more details.
> + * spinlock. The same algorithm is used for sysv semaphores, see ipc/sem.c
> + * for more details.
No. With your change, ipc/sem.c and ipc/msg.c use different algorithms.
Please update the comment and describe the new approach:

Current approach:
- set pointer to message
- STATE_PENDING
- wake_up_process()
- STATE_READY
     (now the receiver can continue)

New approach:
- set pointer to message
- get_task_struct
- STATE_READY
     (now the receiver can continue, e.g. woken up due to an unrelated 
SIGKILL)
- wake_up_process()
- put_task_struct()


> +		if (r_sender) {
> +			wake_up_process(r_sender);
> +			put_task_struct(r_sender);
> +		}
>   		ret = 0;
Could you double-check that it is safe to call wake_up_process on a 
killed and reaped thread, only with a get_task_struct reference?

And: please test it, too. (patch the kernel so that you can trigger this 
case).

--
     Manfred


  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-07 17:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-07 15:03 improve futex on -RT by avoiding the double wake-up Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] futex: avoid double wake up in PI futex wait / wake on -RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 18:41   ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 14:42     ` [PATCH 1/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] futex: avoid double wake up in futex_wake() " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 19:47   ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 16:11     ` [PATCH 2/3 v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-13  3:02       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16  5:09         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16  9:19           ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-16 10:16             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-16 10:49               ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-16 14:42               ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-16 15:54                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-16 16:22                   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-07 15:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-07 17:48   ` Manfred Spraul [this message]
2015-04-07 18:28     ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-10 14:37     ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-04-23 22:18       ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-28  3:24         ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-28 12:37           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:36             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-28 16:43               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-28 16:59                 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-29 19:44                   ` Manfred Spraul
2015-04-30 18:46                     ` Davidlohr Bueso

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=55241851.7060704@colorfullife.com \
    --to=manfred@colorfullife.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=darren@dvhart.com \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=fredrik.markstrom@windriver.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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