From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] de_thread: Move notify_count write under lock
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 19:49:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1423154978.6933.21.camel@tkhai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423152711.6933.19.camel@tkhai>
Ah, sig->notify_count = zap_other_threads(tsk) is the same variable.
Sorry for the noise.
Thanks,
Kirill
В Чт, 05/02/2015 в 19:11 +0300, Kirill Tkhai пишет:
> В Чт, 05/02/2015 в 14:38 +0100, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
> > On 02/05, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >
> > > The write operation may be reordered with the setting of group_exit_task.
> > > If so, this fires in exit_notify().
> >
> > How?
> >
> > OK, yes, "sig->notify_count = -1" can be reordered with the last unlock,
> > but we do not care?
> >
> > group_exit_task + notify_count is only checked under the same lock, and
> > "notify_count = -1" can't happen until de_thread() sees it is zero.
> >
> > Could you explain why this is bad in more details?
> >
> >
> > > --- a/fs/exec.c
> > > +++ b/fs/exec.c
> > > @@ -920,10 +920,16 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > > if (!thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
> > > struct task_struct *leader = tsk->group_leader;
> > >
> > > - sig->notify_count = -1; /* for exit_notify() */
> > > for (;;) {
> > > threadgroup_change_begin(tsk);
> > > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > + /*
> > > + * We could set it once outside the for() cycle, but
> > > + * this requires to use SMP barriers there and in
> > > + * exit_notify(), because the write operation may
> > > + * be reordered with the setting of group_exit_task.
> > > + */
> > > + sig->notify_count = -1; /* for exit_notify() */
> > > if (likely(leader->exit_state))
> > > break;
> > > __set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE);
> >
> > Perhaps something like this makes sense anyway to make the code more
> > clear, but in this case I'd suggest to set ->notify_count after we
> > check ->exit_state. And without the (afaics!) misleading comment...
> >
> > Or I missed something?
>
> Other solution is in the patch below.
>
> Can't (sig->notify_count == -1) be visible earlier than tsk->signal->group_exit_task
> in exit_notify()?
>
> tasklist_lock is held in exit_notify(), but de_thread() actions (notify_count and
> group_exit_task writes) are independent from it (another lock is held there).
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index ad8798e..e3235b7 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -920,6 +920,7 @@ static int de_thread(struct task_struct *tsk)
> if (!thread_group_leader(tsk)) {
> struct task_struct *leader = tsk->group_leader;
>
> + smp_wmb(); /* Pairs with smp_rmb() in exit_notify */
> sig->notify_count = -1; /* for exit_notify() */
> for (;;) {
> threadgroup_change_begin(tsk);
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 6806c55..665fe0e 100644
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -615,8 +615,10 @@ static void exit_notify(struct task_struct *tsk, int group_dead)
> list_add(&tsk->ptrace_entry, &dead);
>
> /* mt-exec, de_thread() is waiting for group leader */
> - if (unlikely(tsk->signal->notify_count < 0))
> + if (unlikely(tsk->signal->notify_count < 0)) {
> + smp_rmb(); /* Pairs with smp_wmb() in de_thread */
> wake_up_process(tsk->signal->group_exit_task);
> + }
> write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &dead, ptrace_entry) {
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-05 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-05 13:13 [PATCH] de_thread: Move notify_count write under lock Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-05 14:15 ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 14:27 ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 17:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-05 16:11 ` Kirill Tkhai
2015-02-05 16:49 ` Kirill Tkhai [this message]
2015-02-05 17:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-02-23 20:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=1423154978.6933.21.camel@tkhai \
--to=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.