Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 21:01 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:

> Do you mean the following patch?

Yes, something like that. At that point ->state should be TASK_RUNNING
(since we are after all running). The unlock_wait() will synchronize
against any in-progress ttwu() while its fast path is a non-atomic
compare. Any ttwu after this will bail since it will either observe
TASK_RUNNING or TASK_DEAD, neither are a state it will act upon.

Now the only question that remains is if we need the full memory barrier
or if we can get away with less.

I guess the mb separates the write to ->state (setting TASK_RUNNING)
from the read of ->pi_lock. The remote CPU must see the TASK_RUNNING,
and we must see ->pi_lock taken if it is.

I also can't find anything to 'borrow' a barrier from (well I can for
mainline, but not for -rt).

So yes, I guess the below will do, albeit it needs a somewhat
comprehensive comment explaining its need.

Oleg, can you agree?

> ---
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> ---
>  kernel/exit.c |    4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: linux-3.2-rc7/kernel/exit.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.2-rc7.orig/kernel/exit.c
> +++ linux-3.2-rc7/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -1038,6 +1038,10 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
>  
>  	preempt_disable();
>  	exit_rcu();
> +
> +	smp_mb();
> +	raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
> +
>  	/* causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(). */
>  	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
>  	schedule();
> 
>