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: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:42:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141004084241.GT10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141003193029.GA24399@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2845 bytes --]
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:30:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
> >
> > - set_current_state(mode);
> > + if (mode)
> > + set_current_state(mode);
> >
> >
> > then rfcomm_run() can do
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > rfcomm_process_sessions();
> >
> > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > if (kthread_should_stop())
> > break;
> > wait_woken(0);
> > }
> probably this makes more sense in this particular case...
Right, in which case the below needs a different justification, but you
said you were already thinking about it, so there must be something.
And clearly it needs a changelog to begin with :-)
A few nits below.
> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct kthread {
>
> enum KTHREAD_BITS {
> KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU = 0,
> + KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK,
> KTHREAD_IS_PARKED,
> @@ -442,6 +443,45 @@ int kthread_park(struct task_struct *k)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void set_kthread_wants_signal(bool on)
> +{
> + struct kthread *kthread = to_kthread(current);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + if (on) {
> + set_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
All barriers must come with a comment :-)
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> + if (kthread_should_stop())
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + } else {
> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void kthread_kill(struct task_struct *k, struct kthread *kthread)
> +{
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
test_bit isn't actually an atomic op so this barrier is 'wrong'. If you
need an MB there smp_mb() it is. Again, comment is missing.
> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags)) {
> + unsigned long flags;
> + bool kill = true;
> +
> + if (lock_task_sighand(k, &flags)) {
Since we do the double test thing here, with the set side also done
under the lock, so we really need a barrier above?
> + kill = test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + if (kill)
> + signal_wake_up(k, 0);
> + unlock_task_sighand(k, &flags);
> + }
> +
> + if (kill)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + wake_up_process(k);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kthread_stop - stop a thread created by kthread_create().
> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
> @@ -469,7 +509,7 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> if (kthread) {
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
> __kthread_unpark(k, kthread);
> - wake_up_process(k);
> + kthread_kill(k, kthread);
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
> }
> ret = k->exit_code;
>
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: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 10:42:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141004084241.GT10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141003193029.GA24399@redhat.com>
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:30:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
> >
> > - set_current_state(mode);
> > + if (mode)
> > + set_current_state(mode);
> >
> >
> > then rfcomm_run() can do
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > rfcomm_process_sessions();
> >
> > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > if (kthread_should_stop())
> > break;
> > wait_woken(0);
> > }
> probably this makes more sense in this particular case...
Right, in which case the below needs a different justification, but you
said you were already thinking about it, so there must be something.
And clearly it needs a changelog to begin with :-)
A few nits below.
> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct kthread {
>
> enum KTHREAD_BITS {
> KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU = 0,
> + KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK,
> KTHREAD_IS_PARKED,
> @@ -442,6 +443,45 @@ int kthread_park(struct task_struct *k)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void set_kthread_wants_signal(bool on)
> +{
> + struct kthread *kthread = to_kthread(current);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + if (on) {
> + set_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
All barriers must come with a comment :-)
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> + if (kthread_should_stop())
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + } else {
> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->sighand->siglock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void kthread_kill(struct task_struct *k, struct kthread *kthread)
> +{
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
test_bit isn't actually an atomic op so this barrier is 'wrong'. If you
need an MB there smp_mb() it is. Again, comment is missing.
> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags)) {
> + unsigned long flags;
> + bool kill = true;
> +
> + if (lock_task_sighand(k, &flags)) {
Since we do the double test thing here, with the set side also done
under the lock, so we really need a barrier above?
> + kill = test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + if (kill)
> + signal_wake_up(k, 0);
> + unlock_task_sighand(k, &flags);
> + }
> +
> + if (kill)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + wake_up_process(k);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kthread_stop - stop a thread created by kthread_create().
> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
> @@ -469,7 +509,7 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> if (kthread) {
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
> __kthread_unpark(k, kthread);
> - wake_up_process(k);
> + kthread_kill(k, kthread);
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
> }
> ret = k->exit_code;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-04 8:42 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
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 [this message]
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=20141004084241.GT10583@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.