Hello,
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:13:29PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/01, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > Yeah yeah, Trond already pointed it out. I forgot about the
> > sigpending special case in schedule(), which I think is rather odd,
>
> I disagree with "rather odd" ;)
>
> We have a lot of examples of
>
> current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
> ...
> if (signal_pending())
> break;
> schedule();
>
> Without that special case in schedule() the code above becomes racy.
> Just consider __wait_event_interruptible().
But __wait_event_interruptible() does proper set-TASK_*, check
sigpending and schedule() sequence. As long as the waker performs
seg-sigpending, wakeup sequence in the correct order, nothing is
broken (as w/ any other wakeup conditions). The special case deals
with callers which don't check sigpending between set-TASK_* and
schedule() and that's the part I think is a bit odd. Whether I feel
odd or not is irrelevant tho - it's already there.
> > Any better ideas?
>
> Well. As a simple (probably temporary) fix, I'd suggest
>
> #define wait_event_freezekillable(wq, condition)
> {
> freezer_do_not_count();
> __retval = wait_event_killable(condition);
> freezer_count();
> __retval;
> }
>
> Do you think it can work?
Yeah, probably. I was hoping to remove count/do_not_count tho.
Hmmm... maybe we can just flip PF_NOFREEZE instead with a bit of
modification, I think.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
