From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751166AbcH3NFF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:05:05 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57456 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750766AbcH3NE7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:04:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:04:27 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <nicholas.piggin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix a race between rwsem and the scheduler
Message-ID: <20160830130426.GA17795@redhat.com>
References: <4050f2ce-1aee-d2aa-39e3-36e995b56252@gmail.com> <20160830121937.GQ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160830121937.GQ10138@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> 	/*
> 	 * Ensure we load p->on_rq _after_ p->state, otherwise it would
> 	 * be possible to, falsely, observe p->on_rq == 0 and get stuck
> 	 * in smp_cond_load_acquire() below.
> 	 *
> 	 * sched_ttwu_pending()			try_to_wake_up()
> 	 *   [S] p->on_rq = 1;			[L] P->state
> 	 *       UNLOCK rq->lock
> 	 *
> 	 * schedule()				RMB
> 	 *       LOCK rq->lock
> 	 *       UNLOCK rq->lock
> 	 *
> 	 * [task p]
> 	 *   [S] p->state = UNINTERRUPTIBLE	[L] p->on_rq
> 	 *
> 	 * Pairs with the UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock from the
> 	 * last wakeup of our task and the schedule that got our task
> 	 * current.
> 	 */

Confused... how this connects to UNLOCK+LOCK on rq->lock? A LOAD can
leak into the critical section.

But context switch should imply mb() we can rely on?

Oleg.