Messages in this thread | | | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/wakeup: Strengthen current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() | Date | Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:07:40 -0400 |
| |
On 9/10/21 10:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 03:17:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 01:57:26PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:27:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> Moo yes, so the earlier changelog I wrote was something like: >>>> >>>> current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state(); >>>> for (;;) { >>>> if (try_lock()) >>>> break; >>>> >>>> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); >>>> if (!cond) >>>> schedule(); >>>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock); >>>> >>>> set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT); >>>> } >>>> current_restore_rtlock_saved_state(); >>>> >>>> which is more what the code looks like before these patches, and in that >>>> case the @cond load can be lifted before __state. >>> Ah, so that makes more sense, thanks. I can't see how the try_lock() could >>> be reordered though, as it's going to have to do an atomic rmw. >> OK, lemme go update the Changelog and make it __flags for bigeasy :-) > The patch now reads: > > --- > Subject: sched/wakeup: Strengthen current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 12:59:16 +0200 > > While looking at current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() I'm thinking > it really ought to use smp_store_mb(), because using it for a more > traditional wait loop like: > > current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state(); > for (;;) { > if (cond) > schedule(); > > set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT); > } > current_restore_rtlock_saved_state(); > > is actually broken, since the cond load could be re-ordered against > the state store, which could lead to a missed wakeup -> BAD (tm). > > While there, make them consistent with the IRQ usage in > set_special_state(). > > Fixes: 5f220be21418 ("sched/wakeup: Prepare for RT sleeping spin/rwlocks") > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210909110203.767330253@infradead.org > --- > include/linux/sched.h | 21 ++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ struct task_group; > */ > #define set_special_state(state_value) \ > do { \ > - unsigned long flags; /* may shadow */ \ > + unsigned long __flags; /* may shadow */ \
Do you still need the "may shadow" comment?
Cheers, Longman
| |