I have to admit that I didn't try to follow this discussion, somehow I thought
that the plan was to use set_special_state(PARKED)...
On 06/05, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
>
> As last mentioned on mail, we are still seeing issue with the latest
> approach and below is the susceptible race as mentioned earlier..
> controller Thread CPUHP Thread
> takedown_cpu
> kthread_park
> kthread_parkme
> Set KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK
> smpboot_thread_fn
> set Task interruptible
>
>
> wake_up_process
> if (!(p->state & state))
> goto out;
>
> Kthread_parkme
> SET TASK_PARKED
> schedule
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> ttwu_remote
> waiting for __task_rq_lock
> context_switch
>
> finish_lock_switch
>
>
>
> Case TASK_PARKED
> kthread_park_complete
>
>
> SET Running
I think you are right.
And, now that I look at 85f1abe0019fcb3ea10df7029056cf42702283a8
("kthread, sched/wait: Fix kthread_parkme() completion issue") I see this note
int the changelog:
The alternative is to promote TASK_PARKED to a special state, this
guarantees wait_task_inactive() cannot observe a 'stale' TASK_RUNNING
and we'll end up doing the right thing, but this preserves the whole
icky business of potentially migating the still runnable thing.
OK, but __kthread_parkme() can be preempted before it calls schedule(), so the
caller still can be migrated? Plus kthread_park_complete() can be called twice.
No?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
