public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>,
	"Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() atboot  time
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:54:12 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CACBD74.FAED4B72@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204041113410.12895-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> <1017948383.22303.537.camel@phantasy>

Robert Love wrote:
> 
> ...
> Do you think it is better to deny preemption if state==TASK_ZOMBIE (note
> this requires code in preempt_schedule and the interrupt return path,
> since Ingo decoupled the two) or just disable preemption around critical
> regions caused by setting state to TASK_ZOMBIE ?
> 
> I suspect this is the first occurrence of a problem of this kind ... and
> the attached patch handles it.
> 

No, the problem goes deeper than this.

I have code which does, effectively:

sleeper()
{
	spin_lock(&some_lock);
	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
	some_flag = 0;
	spin_unlock(&lock);
	schedule();
	if (some_flag == 0)
		i_am_horribly_confused();
}

waker()
{
	spin_lock(&some_lock);
	some_flag = 1;
	wake_up_process(sleeper);
	spin_unlock(&some_lock);
}

or something like that.  See __pdflush() and 
pdflush_operation() in http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.8-pre1/delalloc/dallocbase-60-pdflush.patch

The above code work fine, is nice and I want to keep
it that way.  But it fails on preempt.

The spin_unlock() in sleeper() can sometimes set
task->state to TASK_RUNNING(), so my schedule() call
just falls straight through.

Probably nobody has noticed this in other places because
most sleep/wakeup stuff tends to be done inside a loop;
the bogus "wakeup" is ignored.

Although it can be worked around at the call site, I
think this needs fixing.  Otherwise we have the rule
"spin_unlock will flip you into TASK_RUNNING 0.0001%
of the time if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y".  ug.

I have thought deeply about this, and I then promptly
forgot everything I thought about, but I ended up
concluding that the sanest way of resolving this is
inside __set_current_state().  If the new state is
TASK_RUNNING and the old state is not TASK_RUNNING
then enable preemption, call schedule() if necessary, etc.

It is not acceptable to just say "don't preempt a task
which is not in state TASK_RUNNING", because if an
interrupt happens against a CPU which is running a task
which is in state TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (say), then that
wakeup won't be serviced until the task exits the kernel.

-

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-04-04 20:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-04-04 11:59 Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at boot time Adam J. Richter
2002-04-04 12:56 ` Stelian Pop
2002-04-04 13:40   ` Alessandro Suardi
2002-04-04 16:23 ` David C. Hansen
2002-04-04 18:28   ` Dave Hansen
2002-04-04 18:51     ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 19:14       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-04 19:26         ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 19:41           ` Dave Hansen
2002-04-04 20:02             ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() atboot time george anzinger
2002-04-04 20:54           ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-04-04 21:34           ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at boot time Roger Larsson
2002-04-04 22:38             ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-04 22:42               ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-04 22:54                 ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() atboot time Andrew Morton
2002-04-04 23:07                 ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at boot time Robert Love
2002-04-04 23:42                   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-04 23:47                     ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 23:55                       ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-05  0:03                         ` [PATCH] preemptive kernel behavior change: don't be rude Robert Love
2002-04-05  1:51                           ` george anzinger
2002-04-05  2:06                             ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 22:55               ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at boot time Robert Love
2002-04-04 23:10                 ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() atboot time Andrew Morton
2002-04-04 23:16                   ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 19:13     ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at boot time Linus Torvalds
2002-04-04 19:16       ` Robert Love
2002-04-04 19:45         ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-04 20:09           ` Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() atboot time george anzinger
2002-04-04 19:48       ` george anzinger

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=3CACBD74.FAED4B72@zip.com.au \
    --to=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=adam@yggdrasil.com \
    --cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /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