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.
next 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