Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Create new task with twice disabled preemption | From | Kirill Tkhai <> | Date | Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:33:25 +0400 |
| |
В Птн, 14/02/2014 в 12:21 +0000, Catalin Marinas пишет: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:16:09AM +0000, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > В Птн, 14/02/2014 в 10:52 +0000, Catalin Marinas пишет: > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:32:22PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > > > Look at ARM64's finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). It looks a task > > > > must to not be preempted between switch_mm() and this function. > > > > But in case of new task this is possible. > > > > > > We had a thread about this at the end of last year: > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/15/82 > > > > > > There is indeed a problem on arm64, something like this (and I think > > > s390 also needs a fix): > > > > > > 1. switch_mm() via check_and_switch_context() defers the actual mm > > > switch by setting TIF_SWITCH_MM > > > 2. the context switch is considered 'done' by the kernel before > > > finish_arch_post_lock_switch() and therefore we can be preempted to a > > > new thread before finish_arch_post_lock_switch() > > > 3. The new thread has the same mm as the preempted thread but we > > > actually missed the mm switching in finish_arch_post_lock_switch() > > > because TIF_SWITCH_MM is per thread rather than mm > > > > > > > This is the problem I tried to solve. I don't know arm64, and I can't > > > > say how it is serious. > > > > > > Have you managed to reproduce this? I don't say it doesn't exist, but I > > > want to make sure that any patch actually fixes it. > > > > No, I have not tried. I found this place while analysing scheduler code. > > But it seems with the RT technics suggested previous message it's quite > > possible. > > Now I think I confused myself. Looking through the __schedule() code, > context_switch() and therefore finish_arch_post_lock_switch() are called > with preemption disabled. So the scenario above cannot exist since the > current thread cannot be preempted between switch_mm() and > finish_arch_post_lock_switch(). Do I miss anything?
Everything is right, the only case, which we have to worry, is schedule_tail()
> Now I get your point about schedule_tail() which calls > finish_task_switch() with a preempt count of 0. I'll get back to your > original patch. > > Thanks. >
Kirill
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |