lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] sched/wakeup: Strengthen current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state()
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:59:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> While looking at current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state() I'm thinking
> it really ought to use smp_store_mb(), because something like:
>
> current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state();
> for (;;) {
> if (try_lock())
> break;
>
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
> schedule();
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&lock->wait_lock);
>
> set_current_state(TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT);
> }
> current_restore_rtlock_saved_state();
>
> which is the advertised usage in the comment, is actually broken,
> since trylock() will only need a load-acquire in general and that
> could be re-ordered against the state store, which could lead to a
> missed wakeup -> BAD (tm).

Why doesn't the UNLOCK of pi_lock in current_save_and_set_rtlock_wait_state()
order the state change before the successful try_lock? I'm just struggling
to envisage how this actually goes wrong.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-09 15:48    [W:0.141 / U:2.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site