From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.5-rt6
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 06:31:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131217063156.6ac3bfed@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1387264591.5340.23.camel@marge.simpson.net>
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:16:31 +0100
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de> wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> Looks like there's a booboo here:
>
> On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:14 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> "ptrace: fix ptrace vs tasklist_lock race" added..
>
> @@ -1068,8 +1082,11 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct
> * is actually now running somewhere else!
> */
> while (task_running(rq, p)) {
> - if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state))
> + if (match_state) {
> + if (!unlikely(check_task_state(p, match_state)))
> + return 0;
> return 0;
> + }
Ouch!
> cpu_relax();
> }
>
> ..which is how it stays with the whole series applied.
>
> The patch contains hunk 2 from
>
> "sched/rt: Fix wait_task_interactive() to test rt_spin_lock state",
>
> which went away in -rt6, so it seems the busted hunk should be as below
> if the two are to be merged.
>
> @@ -1068,8 +1082,10 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct
> * is actually now running somewhere else!
> */
> while (task_running(rq, p)) {
> - if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state))
> + if (match_state && unlikely(p->state != match_state)
> + && unlikely(p->saved_state != match_state))
> return 0;
> + }
Yeah, it should just be:
if (match_state && check_task_state(p, match_state))
return 0;
Also, looking at check_task_state():
+static bool check_task_state(struct task_struct *p, long match_state)
+{
+ bool match = false;
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
+ if (p->state == match_state)
+ match = true;
+ else if (p->saved_state == match_state)
+ match = true;
Why the if () else if()? and not just:
if (p->state == match_state || p->save_state == match_state)
match = true;
?
The else if makes me think there's something missing.
-- Steve
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&p->pi_lock);
+
+ return match;
+}
> cpu_relax();
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-17 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-16 9:14 [ANNOUNCE] 3.12.5-rt6 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2013-12-17 7:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-12-17 11:31 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2013-12-17 12:42 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2013-12-17 14:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-12-17 14:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-12-17 14:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=20131217063156.6ac3bfed@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bitbucket@online.de \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).