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.
-
next prev 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