On 2021-05-08 12:23, Manfred Spraul wrote:
Hi Varad,
On 5/7/21 3:38 PM, Varad Gautam wrote:
@@ -1005,11 +1022,9 @@ static inline void __pipelined_op(struct
wake_q_head *wake_q,
struct ext_wait_queue *this)
{
list_del(&this->list);
- get_task_struct(this->task);
-
+ wake_q_add(wake_q, this->task);
/* see MQ_BARRIER for purpose/pairing */
smp_store_release(&this->state, STATE_READY);
- wake_q_add_safe(wake_q, this->task);
}
/* pipelined_send() - send a message directly to the task waiting
in
First, I was too fast: I had assumed that wake_q_add() before
smp_store_release() would be a potential lost wakeup.
Yeah you need wake_up_q() to actually wake anything up.
As __pipelined_op() is called within spin_lock(&info->lock), and as
wq_sleep() will reread this->state after acquiring
spin_lock(&info->lock), I do not see a bug anymore.
Right, and when I proposed this version of the fix I was mostly focusing
on STATE_READY
being set as the last operation, but the fact of the matter is we had
moved to the
wake_q_add_safe() version for two reasons:
(1) Ensuring the ->state = STATE_READY is done after the reference count
and avoid
racing with exit. In mqueue's original use of wake_q we were relying on
the call's
implied barrier from wake_q_add() in order to avoid reordering of
setting the state.
But this turned out to be insufficient hence the explicit
smp_store_release().
(2) In order to prevent a potential lost wakeup when the blocked task is
already queued
for wakeup by another task (the failed cmpxchg case in wake_q_add), and
therefore we need
to set the return condition (->state = STATE_READY) before adding the
task to the wake_q.
But I'm not seeing how race (2) can happen in mqueue. The race was
always theoretical to
begin with, with the exception of rwsems[1] in which actually the wakee
task could end up in
the waker's wake_q without actually blocking.
So all in all I now agree that we should keep the order of how we
currently have things,
just to be on the safer side, if nothing else.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1543495830-2644-1-git-send-email-xieyongji@xxxxxxxxx
Thanks,
Davidlohr
