public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:28:18 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130604192818.GA31316@redhat.com> (raw)

Hello,

Just noticed this commit...

commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e
Author: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Date:   Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700

    Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
    wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
    positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
    elapses.  However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed.  If the wake-up
    handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
    calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
    condition became true before the timeout has passed.

OK, agreed.

	--- a/include/linux/wait.h
	+++ b/include/linux/wait.h
	@@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ do {						\
			if (!ret)						\
				break;						\
		}								\
	+	if (!ret && (condition))					\
	+		ret = 1;						\
		finish_wait(&wq, &__wait);					\
	 } while (0)

Well, this evaluates "condition" twice, perhaps it would be more
clean to do, say,

	#define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, ret)			\
	do {									\
		DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
										\
		for (;;) {							\
			prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);	\
			if (condition) {					\
				if (!ret)					\
					ret = 1;				\
				break;						\
			} else if (!ret)					\
				break;						\
			ret = schedule_timeout(ret);				\
		}								\
		finish_wait(&wq, &__wait);					\
	} while (0)

but this is minor.

	@@ -233,8 +235,9 @@ do {						\
	  * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could
	  * change the result of the wait condition.
	  *
	- * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, and the remaining
	- * jiffies if the condition evaluated to true before the timeout elapsed.
	+ * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, or the remaining
	+ * jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated to %true before
	+ * the @timeout elapsed.

This is still not true if timeout == 0.

Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say,

	#define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout)			\
	({									\
		long __ret = timeout;						\
		if (!(condition))						\
			__wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret);		\
		else if (!__ret)						\
			__ret = 1;						\
		__ret;								\
	})

Or wait_event_timeout(timeout => 0) is not legal in a non-void context?

To me the code like

	long wait_for_something(bool nonblock)
	{
		timeout = nonblock ? 0 : DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
		return wait_event_timeout(..., timeout);
	}

looks reasonable and correct. But it is not?

Oleg.


             reply	other threads:[~2013-06-04 19:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-06-04 19:28 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2013-06-04 21:35 ` [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout() Imre Deak
2013-06-04 21:40   ` Imre Deak
2013-06-05 16:37     ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-05 19:07       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-06-06  1:45         ` Tejun Heo
2013-06-06 18:47           ` Oleg Nesterov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-05-02  8:58 Imre Deak
2013-05-02  9:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-07 23:12   ` Andrew Morton
2013-05-08  9:49     ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 10:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:02   ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:13   ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:23     ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 12:29       ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:34       ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 12:54         ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 13:56           ` Imre Deak
2013-05-02 14:04             ` Daniel Vetter
2013-05-02 12:29 ` David Howells
2013-05-02 12:35   ` Jens Axboe
2013-05-02 19:56     ` Imre Deak

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=20130604192818.GA31316@redhat.com \
    --to=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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