From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755685AbbCFTju (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:39:50 -0500
Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:32804 "EHLO mail.efficios.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750933AbbCFTjt (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:39:49 -0500
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:39:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <148790040.241085.1425670784201.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150306140347.64cfcad1@gandalf.local.home>
References: <995381344.227770.1425597484864.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <950470583.228004.1425599331454.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <CA+55aFzn+ikDZ=Zi6EegH0ji6Wc1o-k6f1DmPGjzaJ+K3udc5g@mail.gmail.com> <402283060.238174.1425652523685.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20150306140347.64cfcad1@gandalf.local.home>
Subject: Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [173.246.22.116]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.7_GA_6021 (ZimbraWebClient - FF36 (Linux)/8.0.7_GA_6021)
Thread-Topic: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()
Thread-Index: dPkLW8IUaBO8lzFV7bp0u3e6ikC0gQ==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Huang Ying"
> <ying.huang@intel.com>, "Lai Jiangshan" <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, "Lai Jiangshan" <eag0628@gmail.com>, "Peter
> Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 2:03:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()
> 
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:35:23 +0000 (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the compiler should never reorder loads/stores from/to
> > same memory location from a program order POV. What I had in mind
> > is a bit more far-fetched though: it would involve having the compiler
> > reorder this load after a store to another memory location, which
> > would in turn allow another execution context (interrupt or thread)
> > to corrupt the list.
> 
> You mean on another CPU? Because the code you are worried about has
> interrupts disabled.

I'm worried that another CPU could issue try_to_wake_up() on a
task concurrently with the llist iteration within sched_ttwu_pending().

AFAIU, ttwu_queue_remote() is called from ttwu_queue() without holding
the rq lock. So I'm wondering what prevents corruption of the wake_list
in this situation.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com