lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] ipc/mqueue: remove STATE_PENDING
On 04/07/2015 05:03 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This patch moves the wakeup_process() invocation so it is not done under
> the info->lock. With this change, the waiter is woken up once it is
> "ready" which means its state is STATE_READY and it does not need to loop
> on SMP if it is still in STATE_PENDING.
> In the timeout case we still need to grab the info->lock to verify the state.
>
> This change should also avoid the introduction of preempt_disable() in
> -RT which avoids a busy-loop which pools for the STATE_PENDING -> STATE_READY
> change if the waiter has a higher priority compared to the waker.

> @@ -909,9 +905,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(mq_unlink, const char __user *, u_name)
> * bypasses the message array and directly hands the message over to the
> * receiver.
> * The receiver accepts the message and returns without grabbing the queue
> - * spinlock. Therefore an intermediate STATE_PENDING state and memory barriers
> - * are necessary. The same algorithm is used for sysv semaphores, see
> - * ipc/sem.c for more details.
> + * spinlock. The same algorithm is used for sysv semaphores, see ipc/sem.c
> + * for more details.
No. With your change, ipc/sem.c and ipc/msg.c use different algorithms.
Please update the comment and describe the new approach:

Current approach:
- set pointer to message
- STATE_PENDING
- wake_up_process()
- STATE_READY
(now the receiver can continue)

New approach:
- set pointer to message
- get_task_struct
- STATE_READY
(now the receiver can continue, e.g. woken up due to an unrelated
SIGKILL)
- wake_up_process()
- put_task_struct()


> + if (r_sender) {
> + wake_up_process(r_sender);
> + put_task_struct(r_sender);
> + }
> ret = 0;
Could you double-check that it is safe to call wake_up_process on a
killed and reaped thread, only with a get_task_struct reference?

And: please test it, too. (patch the kernel so that you can trigger this
case).

--
Manfred



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-07 20:21    [W:0.075 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site