public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Rusty Russel <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com
Subject: [PATCH, RFC] kthread: (possibly) a missing memory barrier in kthread_stop()
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:03:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1203375817.7619.73.camel@earth> (raw)


Hi,


[ description ]

Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()

'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();

and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().

on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() does not seem to
guarantee a full mb.

And 'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process()
checks for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.

(the patch is at the end of the message)


[ more detailed description ]

the current code might well be safe in case a to-be-stopped 'kthread'
task is _not_ running on another CPU at the moment when kthread_stop()
is called (in this case, 'rq->lock' will act as a kind of synch.
point/barrier).

Another case is as follows:

CPU#0:

...
while (kthread_should_stop()) {

       if (condition)
             schedule();

       /* ... do something useful ... */   <--- EIP

       set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
}

so a 'kthread' task is about to call
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ...


(in the mean time)

CPU#1:

kthread_stop()

-> kthread_stop_info.k = k                 (*)
-> wake_up_process()

wake_up_process() looks like:

(try_to_wake_up)

IRQ_OFF
LOCK

old_state = p->state;
if (!(old_state & state))                  (**)
         goto out;

...

UNLOCK
IRQ_ON


let's suppose (*) and (**) are reordered
(according to Documentation/memory-barriers.txt, neither IRQ_OFF nor
LOCK may prevent it from happening).

- the state is TASK_RUNNING, so we are about to return.

- CPU#1 is about to execute (*) (it's guaranteed to be done before
spin_unlock(&rq->lock) at the end of try_to_wake_up())


(in the mean time)

CPU#0:

- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();

here, kthread_stop_info.k is not yet visible

- schedule()

... 

we missed a 'kthread_stop' event.

hum?


TIA,

---

From: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Subject: kthread: add a memory barrier to kthread_stop()

'kthread' threads do a check in the following order:
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- kthread_should_stop();

and set_current_state() implies an smp_mb().

on another side (kthread_stop), wake_up_process() is not guaranteed to
act as a full mb.

'kthread_stop_info.k' must be visible before wake_up_process() checks
for/modifies a state of the 'kthread' task.


Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>


diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
index 0ac8878..5167110 100644
--- a/kernel/kthread.c
+++ b/kernel/kthread.c
@@ -211,6 +211,10 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
 
 	/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
 	kthread_stop_info.k = k;
+
+	/* The previous store operation must not get ahead of the wakeup. */
+	smp_mb();
+
 	wake_up_process(k);
 	put_task_struct(k);
 



             reply	other threads:[~2008-02-18 23:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-18 23:03 Dmitry Adamushko [this message]
2008-02-19  6:44 ` [PATCH, RFC] kthread: (possibly) a missing memory barrier in kthread_stop() Nick Piggin
2008-02-19  9:24   ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-19  9:53     ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 13:41     ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 22:52       ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-02-19 13:00 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-02-19 13:11   ` Dmitry Adamushko

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=1203375817.7619.73.camel@earth \
    --to=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /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