From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"zhangyi \(F\)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: check kthread_should_stop() after the setting of task state
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:58:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9caa4860-975c-70bb-c8b9-737d1db9ead4@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFLxGvwRDfB4mqxJhOLwWvoZ3yzpVY-kuAiovYLf8T7WwJqaTg@mail.gmail.com>
在 2020/8/4 6:11, Richard Weinberger 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:01 AM Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, I see the problem but I fear this patch does not cure the race completely.
>>> It just lowers the chance to hit it.
>>> What if KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP is set right after you checked for it?
>> The patch can handle this case. ubi_thread will exit at
>> kthread_should_stop() in next iteration.
> How can it reach the next iteration?
> Maybe I didn't fully get your explanation.
>
> As far as I understand the problem correctly, the following happens:
> 1. ubi_thread is running and the program counter is somewhere between
> "if (kthread_should_stop())"
> and schedule()
> 2. While detaching kthread_stop() is called
> 3. Since the program counter in the thread is right before schedule(),
> it does not check KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP
> and blindly calls into schedule()
> 4. The thread goes to sleep and nothing wakes it anymore -> endless wait.
>
> Is this correct so far?
Oh, you're thinking about influence by schedule(), I get it. But I think
it still works. Because the ubi_thread is still on runqueue, it will be
scheduled to execute later anyway.
op state of
ubi_thread on runqueue
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE Yes
if (kthread_should_stop()) // not satisfy
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE Yes
kthread_stop:
wake_up_process
ttwu_queue
ttwu_do_activate
ttwu_do_wakeup TASK_RUNNING Yes
schedule
__schedule(false)
// prev->state is TASK_RUNNING, so we cannot move it from runqueue by
deactivate_task(). So just pick next task to execute, ubi_thread is
still on runqueue and will be scheduled to execute later.
The test patch added mdelay(5000) before schedule(), which can make sure
kthread_stop()->wake_up_process() executed before schedule(). Previous
analysis can be proved through test.
@@ -1638,6 +1641,15 @@ int ubi_thread(void *u)
!ubi->thread_enabled ||
ubi_dbg_is_bgt_disabled(ubi)) {
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
+ if (kthread_should_stop()) {
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+ break;
+ }
+
+ pr_err("Check should stop B\n");
+ mdelay(5000);
+ pr_err("delay 5000ms \n");
+
schedule();
continue;
}
>
> Your solution is putting another check for KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP before
> schedule().
> I argue that this will just reduce the chance to hit the race window
> because it can still happen
> that kthread_stop() is being called right after the second check and
> again before schedule().
> Then we end up with the same situation.
>
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-04 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-01 9:12 [PATCH] ubi: check kthread_should_stop() after the setting of task state Zhihao Cheng
2020-08-02 21:25 ` Richard Weinberger
2020-08-03 2:01 ` Zhihao Cheng
2020-08-03 22:11 ` Richard Weinberger
2020-08-04 2:58 ` Zhihao Cheng [this message]
2020-08-04 21:56 ` Richard Weinberger
2020-08-05 2:23 ` Zhihao Cheng
2020-08-06 20:15 ` Richard Weinberger
2020-08-07 2:18 ` Zhihao Cheng
2020-08-07 19:29 ` Richard Weinberger
2020-08-08 3:26 ` Zhihao Cheng
2020-09-13 18:48 ` Richard Weinberger
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=9caa4860-975c-70bb-c8b9-737d1db9ead4@huawei.com \
--to=chengzhihao1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox