All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:28:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130604192818.GA31316@redhat.com> (raw)

Hello,

Just noticed this commit...

commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e
Author: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Date:   Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700

    Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
    wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
    positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
    elapses.  However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed.  If the wake-up
    handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
    calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
    condition became true before the timeout has passed.

OK, agreed.

	--- a/include/linux/wait.h
	+++ b/include/linux/wait.h
	@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ do {						\
			if (!ret)						\
				break;						\
		}								\
	+	if (!ret && (condition))					\
	+		ret = 1;						\
		finish_wait(&wq, &__wait);					\
	 } while (0)

Well, this evaluates "condition" twice, perhaps it would be more
clean to do, say,

	#define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, ret)			\
	do {									\
		DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
										\
		for (;;) {							\
			prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);	\
			if (condition) {					\
				if (!ret)					\
					ret = 1;				\
				break;						\
			} else if (!ret)					\
				break;						\
			ret = schedule_timeout(ret);				\
		}								\
		finish_wait(&wq, &__wait);					\
	} while (0)

but this is minor.

	@@ -233,8 +235,9 @@ do {						\
	  * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could
	  * change the result of the wait condition.
	  *
	- * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, and the remaining
	- * jiffies if the condition evaluated to true before the timeout elapsed.
	+ * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, or the remaining
	+ * jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated to %true before
	+ * the @timeout elapsed.

This is still not true if timeout == 0.

Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say,

	#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)			\
	({									\
		long __ret = timeout;						\
		if (!(condition))						\
			__wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret);		\
		else if (!__ret)						\
			__ret = 1;						\
		__ret;								\
	})

Or wait_event_timeout(timeout => 0) is not legal in a non-void context?

To me the code like

	long wait_for_something(bool nonblock)
	{
		timeout = nonblock ? 0 : DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
		return wait_event_timeout(..., timeout);
	}

looks reasonable and correct. But it is not?

Oleg.


             reply	other threads:[~2013-06-04 19:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-04 19:28 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-04 21:35 ` [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout() Imre Deak
2013-06-04 21:40   ` Imre Deak
2013-06-05 16:37     ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-05 19:07       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06  1:45         ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06 18:47           ` Oleg Nesterov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-02  8:58 Imre Deak
2013-05-02  9:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-07 23:12   ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-08  9:49     ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 10:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:02   ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:13   ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:23     ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 12:29       ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:34       ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:54         ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 13:56           ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 14:04             ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:35   ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 19:56     ` Imre Deak

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=20130604192818.GA31316@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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.