Re: [RFC PATCH(experimental) 2/2] Fix freezer-kthread_stop race

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Friday, 20 April 2007 23:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/20, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 10:54:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hmm, can't we do something like this instead:
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/kthread.c |   10 ++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/kthread.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc7.orig/kernel/kthread.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc7/kernel/kthread.c
> > > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > >  #include <linux/file.h>
> > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > +#include <linux/freezer.h>
> > >  #include <asm/semaphore.h>
> > > 
> > >  /*
> > > @@ -232,6 +233,15 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> > > 
> > >  	/* Now set kthread_should_stop() to true, and wake it up. */
> > >  	kthread_stop_info.k = k;
> > > +	if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE)) {
> > > +		/* If we are freezable, the freezer will wait for us */
> > > +		task_lock(k);
> > > +		k->flags |= PF_NOFREEZE;
> > > +		if (frozen(k))
> > > +			k->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN;
> > > +
> > > +		task_unlock(k);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Yes, we can do this for now since the tasks have only two freeze states,
> > namely Freezeable and Non Freezeable. 
> 
> No, we can't change k->flags, k owns its ->flags, and it is not atomic.

Yes, but if we move PF_FROZEN to a separate field in task_struct with
appropriate locking, then it won't be a problem any more IMO.
 
> Rafael, may I suggest you to document task_lock() in thaw_process() ? This
> looks really confusing, as if task_lock() protects "p->flags &= ~PF_FROZEN".
> 
> Actually, task_lock() is needed to prevent the race with refrigerator()
> when the freezing fails, but this is not obvious.

Sure, I will.

Greetings,
Rafael