From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swait: add missing barrier to swake_up
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:23:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170901092322.GA4192@andrea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170901061450.1450-1-npiggin@gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:14:50PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> swake_up and swake_up_all test the swaitqueue outside the lock,
> but they are missing the barrier that would ensure visibility
> of a previous store that sets the wakeup condition with the
> load that tests the swaitqueue. This could lead to a lost wakeup
> if there is memory reordering. Fix this as prescribed by the
> waitqueue_active comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> --
> I noticed this when chasing down that rcu hang bug (which
> turned out to not be anything of the sort). I might be missing
> something here and it's safe somehow, but if so then it should
> have a comment where it diverges from normal waitqueues.
>
> It looks like there's a few callers which are also testing
> swait_active before swake_up without a barrier which look wrong,
> so I must be missing something but I'm not sure what.
Hi Nicholas. I noticed
35a2897c2a306cca344ca5c0b43416707018f434
("sched/wait: Remove the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up*()")
in tip:locking/core.
Andrea
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
> ---
> kernel/sched/swait.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/swait.c b/kernel/sched/swait.c
> index 3d5610dcce11..9056278001d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/swait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/swait.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,11 @@ void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + /*
> + * See waitqueue_active() comments for checking waiters outside
> + * the lock. Same principle applies here.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> if (!swait_active(q))
> return;
>
> @@ -51,6 +56,11 @@ void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q)
> struct swait_queue *curr;
> LIST_HEAD(tmp);
>
> + /*
> + * See waitqueue_active() comments for checking waiters outside
> + * the lock. Same principle applies here.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> if (!swait_active(q))
> return;
>
> --
> 2.13.3
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-01 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-01 6:14 [PATCH] swait: add missing barrier to swake_up Nicholas Piggin
2017-09-01 9:23 ` Andrea Parri [this message]
2017-09-01 9:55 ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-09-01 14:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-01 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20170901092322.GA4192@andrea \
--to=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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