Re: [RFC PATCH] ipc/mqueue: avoid sleep after wakeup

[Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>]

Hi Hillf,

On 5/14/21 5:01 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
> The pipeline waker could start doing its job once waiter releases lock and
> get the work done before waiter takes a nap, so check wait condition before
> sleep to avoid waiting the wakeup that will never come, though that does not
> hurt much thanks to timer timeouts like a second.

First: The timeout could be infinity, thus the code must not rely on a 
timeout wakeup.

A wrong wait is would be a bug.


>
> Check signal for the same reason.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
> ---
>
> --- y/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ x/ipc/mqueue.c
> @@ -710,15 +710,24 @@ static int wq_sleep(struct mqueue_inode_
>   		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>   
>   		spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> -		time = schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock(timeout, 0,
> -			HRTIMER_MODE_ABS, CLOCK_REALTIME);
>   

I do not see a bug:

We do the __set_current_state() while holding the spinlock. If there is 
a wakeup, then the wakeup will change current->state to TASK_RUNNING.

schedule() will not remove us from the run queue when current->state is 
TASK_RUNNING. The same applies if there are pending signals: schedule() 
checks for pending signals and sets current->state to TASK_RUNNING.

Since the __set_current_state() is done while we hold info->lock, and 
since the wakeup cannot happen before we have dropped the lock [because 
the task that wakes us up needs the same lock], I do not see how a 
wakeup could be lost.

Thus: Which issue do you see?

--

     Manfred