From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Rusty Russel <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] kthread: (possibly) a missing memory barrier in kthread_stop()
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080219130033.GK24479@shadowen.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1203375817.7619.73.camel@earth>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:03:37AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> [ description ]
>
> Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()
>
> 'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> - kthread_should_stop();
>
> and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().
>
> on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() does not seem to
> guarantee a full mb.
>
> And 'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process()
> checks for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.
>
> (the patch is at the end of the message)
>
>
> [ more detailed description ]
>
> the current code might well be safe in case a to-be-stopped 'kthread'
> task is _not_ running on another CPU at the moment when kthread_stop()
> is called (in this case, 'rq->lock' will act as a kind of synch.
> point/barrier).
>
> Another case is as follows:
>
> CPU#0:
>
> ...
> while (kthread_should_stop()) {
>
> if (condition)
> schedule();
>
> /* ... do something useful ... */ <--- EIP
>
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
>
> so a 'kthread' task is about to call
> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ...
>
>
> (in the mean time)
>
> CPU#1:
>
> kthread_stop()
>
> -> kthread_stop_info.k = k (*)
> -> wake_up_process()
>
> wake_up_process() looks like:
>
> (try_to_wake_up)
>
> IRQ_OFF
> LOCK
>
> old_state = p->state;
> if (!(old_state & state)) (**)
> goto out;
>
> ...
>
> UNLOCK
> IRQ_ON
>
>
> let's suppose (*) and (**) are reordered
> (according to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, neither IRQ_OFF nor
> LOCK may prevent it from happening).
>
> - the state is TASK_RUNNING, so we are about to return.
>
> - CPU#1 is about to execute (*) (it's guaranteed to be done before
> spin_unlock(&rq->lock) at the end of try_to_wake_up())
>
>
> (in the mean time)
>
> CPU#0:
>
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> - kthread_should_stop();
>
> here, kthread_stop_info.k is not yet visible
>
> - schedule()
>
> ...
>
> we missed a 'kthread_stop' event.
>
> hum?
>
>
> TIA,
>
> ---
>
> From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
> Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()
>
> 'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> - kthread_should_stop();
>
> and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().
>
> on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() is not guaranteed to
> act as a full mb.
>
> 'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process() checks
> for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> index 0ac8878..5167110 100644
> --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,10 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
>
> /* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
> kthread_stop_info.k = k;
> +
> + /* The previous store operation must not get ahead of the wakeup. */
> + smp_mb();
> +
> wake_up_process(k);
> put_task_struct(k);
The rules as written do seem to support your theory. The CPU has every
right to delay the .k = k as late as the UNLOCK operation.
On the read-side there is a full barrier implied by the
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE), however this synchronises us with
the current global state, which may well not have the updated version
of .k.
That seems to imply that a write memory barrier would be sufficient to
cover this.
So three comments. First, should this not be an smp_wmb. Second, this
memory barrier is paired with the barrier in
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) and that probabally should be
documented as part of this patch. Finally, I think the comment as is is
hard to understand I got the sense of it backwards on first reading;
perhaps something like this:
/*
* Ensure kthread_stop_info.k is visible before wakeup, paired
* with barrier in set_current_state().
*/
-apw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-19 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-18 23:03 [PATCH, RFC] kthread: (possibly) a missing memory barrier in kthread_stop() Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 6:44 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-19 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-19 9:53 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 13:41 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 22:52 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 13:00 ` Andy Whitcroft [this message]
2008-02-19 13:11 ` Dmitry Adamushko
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=20080219130033.GK24479@shadowen.org \
--to=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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.