From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:50:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141003115020.GG10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141002201020.GA8907@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2540 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:10:20PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> You know, I already thought about the patch below for other reasons, it
> can probably simplify other users of kthread_should_stop(). Because this
> way we can rely on the signal checks in schedule(). (Just in case, the
> patch is not complete, see TODO).
>
> As for rfcomm_run(), perhaps it can ise it too?
>
> set_kthread_wants_signal(true);
>
> add_wait_queue(&rfcomm_wq, &wait);
> for (;;) {
> // This is only possible if kthread_should_stop() == T
True because kthreads SIG_IGN everything, right?
> if (signal_pending(current))
> break;
>
> rfcomm_process_sessions();
> wait_woken(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
>
> Of course, this assumes that rfcomm_process_sessions() can't do something
> "really bad" if signal_pending() is true.
So from what I can think of, everything that does an INTERRUPTIBLE sleep
will 'malfunction' after that, right? Which might be quite a lot
actually.
> What do you think?
Interesting approach, but somewhat risky I tihnk, due to that
INTERRUPTIBLE thing.
> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ struct kthread {
> enum KTHREAD_BITS {
> KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU = 0,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP,
> + KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK,
> KTHREAD_IS_PARKED,
> };
> @@ -442,6 +443,21 @@ int kthread_park(struct task_struct *k)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void set_kthread_wants_signal(bool on)
> +{
> + unsigned long *kflags = &to_kthread(current)->flags;
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> +
> + if (on) {
> + set_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, kflags);
> + } else {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, irqflags);
> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, kflags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, irqflags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kthread_stop - stop a thread created by kthread_create().
> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
> @@ -469,6 +485,9 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> if (kthread) {
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
> __kthread_unpark(k, kthread);
> + // TODO: this is racy, we need ->siglock.
> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &to_kthread(k)->flags))
> + set_tsk_thread_flag(k, TIF_SIGPENDING);
Right, but taking that should not really be a problem afaict, this is a
slow path if ever there was one.
> wake_up_process(k);
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
> }
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@intel.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@intel.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@intel.com>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:50:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141003115020.GG10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141002201020.GA8907@redhat.com>
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:10:20PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> You know, I already thought about the patch below for other reasons, it
> can probably simplify other users of kthread_should_stop(). Because this
> way we can rely on the signal checks in schedule(). (Just in case, the
> patch is not complete, see TODO).
>
> As for rfcomm_run(), perhaps it can ise it too?
>
> set_kthread_wants_signal(true);
>
> add_wait_queue(&rfcomm_wq, &wait);
> for (;;) {
> // This is only possible if kthread_should_stop() == T
True because kthreads SIG_IGN everything, right?
> if (signal_pending(current))
> break;
>
> rfcomm_process_sessions();
> wait_woken(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> }
>
> Of course, this assumes that rfcomm_process_sessions() can't do something
> "really bad" if signal_pending() is true.
So from what I can think of, everything that does an INTERRUPTIBLE sleep
will 'malfunction' after that, right? Which might be quite a lot
actually.
> What do you think?
Interesting approach, but somewhat risky I tihnk, due to that
INTERRUPTIBLE thing.
> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ struct kthread {
> enum KTHREAD_BITS {
> KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU = 0,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP,
> + KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK,
> KTHREAD_IS_PARKED,
> };
> @@ -442,6 +443,21 @@ int kthread_park(struct task_struct *k)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void set_kthread_wants_signal(bool on)
> +{
> + unsigned long *kflags = &to_kthread(current)->flags;
> + unsigned long irqflags;
> +
> + if (on) {
> + set_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, kflags);
> + } else {
> + spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, irqflags);
> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, kflags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, irqflags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kthread_stop - stop a thread created by kthread_create().
> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
> @@ -469,6 +485,9 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> if (kthread) {
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
> __kthread_unpark(k, kthread);
> + // TODO: this is racy, we need ->siglock.
> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &to_kthread(k)->flags))
> + set_tsk_thread_flag(k, TIF_SIGPENDING);
Right, but taking that should not really be a problem afaict, this is a
slow path if ever there was one.
> wake_up_process(k);
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-03 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-30 8:02 [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep() Fengguang Wu
2014-10-02 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:38 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 12:38 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:05 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:05 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 14:16 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 14:16 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 16:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 19:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:11 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 19:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 19:49 ` Peter Hurley
2014-10-02 19:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 19:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-02 20:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-02 20:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-10-03 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-03 17:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 17:56 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 19:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-03 19:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-04 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-04 8:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 0:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 0:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 9:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-06 10:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-06 10:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-10-06 16:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-06 16:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-10-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-10-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20141003115020.GG10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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.