From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:24:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141006162109.GA29890@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141006091915.GC6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1972 bytes --]
On 10/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:25:09AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I specially checked Documentation/memory-barriers.txt,
> >
> > (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
> >
> > These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
> > decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
> > reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
> >
> > These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
> > value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Either you or memory-barriers.txt should be fixed ;)
Heh.
> Its in there, just not explicitly. All those functions listed are
> read-modify-write ops, test_bit() is not, its just a read.
OOPS! I was hypnotized by "_bit" suffix, I guess.
Of course, of course, test_bit() must be a plain LOAD in any case, can't
understand what I was thinking about.
So in this particular case kthread_kill() needs smp_mb__AFTER_atomic(),
and "after" applies to set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP).
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1594,12 +1594,9 @@ CPU from reordering them.
> (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
> (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> - These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
> - decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
> - reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
> -
> - These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
> - value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
> + These are for use with atomic/bitop (r-m-w) functions that don't return
> + a value (eg. atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}(), {set,clear}_bit()). These
> + functions do not imply memory barriers.
Thanks!
Oleg.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:21:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141006162109.GA29890@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141006091915.GC6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 10/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:25:09AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I specially checked Documentation/memory-barriers.txt,
> >
> > (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
> >
> > These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
> > decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
> > reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
> >
> > These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
> > value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Either you or memory-barriers.txt should be fixed ;)
Heh.
> Its in there, just not explicitly. All those functions listed are
> read-modify-write ops, test_bit() is not, its just a read.
OOPS! I was hypnotized by "_bit" suffix, I guess.
Of course, of course, test_bit() must be a plain LOAD in any case, can't
understand what I was thinking about.
So in this particular case kthread_kill() needs smp_mb__AFTER_atomic(),
and "after" applies to set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP).
> --- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
> @@ -1594,12 +1594,9 @@ CPU from reordering them.
> (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
> (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> - These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
> - decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
> - reference counting. These functions do not imply memory barriers.
> -
> - These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
> - value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
> + These are for use with atomic/bitop (r-m-w) functions that don't return
> + a value (eg. atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}(), {set,clear}_bit()). These
> + functions do not imply memory barriers.
Thanks!
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-06 16:24 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
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 [this message]
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=20141006162109.GA29890@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--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.