From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/26] task_work: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with
 lock/unlock pair
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <20170630152010.GA6935@redhat.com>
References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1498780894-8253-2-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170630110445.GA5123@redhat.com>
 <20170630125020.GU2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, manfred@colorfullife.com,
        tj@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        will.deacon@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        stern@rowland.harvard.edu, parri.andrea@gmail.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170630125020.GU2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org

On 06/30, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > +		raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
> > > +		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
>
> I agree that the spin_unlock_wait() implementations would avoid the
> deadlock with an acquisition from an interrupt handler, while also
> avoiding the need to momentarily disable interrupts.  The ->pi_lock is
> a per-task lock, so I am assuming (perhaps naively) that contention is
> not a problem.  So is the overhead of interrupt disabling likely to be
> noticeable here?

I do not think the overhead will be noticeable in this particular case.

But I am not sure I understand why do we want to unlock_wait. Yes I agree,
it has some problems, but still...

The code above looks strange for me. If we are going to repeat this pattern
the perhaps we should add a helper for lock+unlock and name it unlock_wait2 ;)

If not, we should probably change this code more:

--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -96,20 +96,16 @@ void task_work_run(void)
 		 * work->func() can do task_work_add(), do not set
 		 * work_exited unless the list is empty.
 		 */
+		raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 		do {
 			work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
 			head = !work && (task->flags & PF_EXITING) ?
 				&work_exited : NULL;
 		} while (cmpxchg(&task->task_works, work, head) != work);
+		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		if (!work)
 			break;
-		/*
-		 * Synchronize with task_work_cancel(). It can't remove
-		 * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
-		 * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
-		 */
-		raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
 
 		do {
 			next = work->next;

performance-wise this is almost the same, and if we do not really care about
overhead we can simplify the code: this way it is obvious that we can't race
with task_work_cancel().

Oleg.