On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 08:35:49PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Sure, so the trivial problem is not actually going to sleep in the outer
> > wait primitive because the inner wait primitive reset ->state to
> > TASK_RUNNING.
>
> But this means that fixup_sleep() must not be used?
Right, in case its an actual bug, we'll not use fixup_sleep(). Those are
only used to annotate the few odd cases.
> > So by always setting the ->state to TASK_RUNNING it never goes to sleep
> > and it'll revert to spinning,
>
> But I tried to suggest to not set TASK_RUNNING?
That's what I understood, because that's the difference between
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP and not. Or I made a complete mess of things,
which could well have happened, I had a terrible headache yesterday.
> Peter, I am sorry for wasting your time, this is really minor, but still
> I'd like to understand.
>
> Let me try again. With this series we have
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> #define fixup_sleep() __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING)
> #else
> #define fixup_sleep() do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> and this means that we do not need __set_current_state(RUNNING) for
> correctness, just we want to shut up the warning in __might_sleep().
> This is fine (and the self-documenting helper is nice), but this means
> that CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP adds a subtle difference.
>
> For example, let's suppose that we do not have 01/11 which fixes
> mutex_lock(). Then this code
>
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> ...
> fixup_sleep();
> ...
> mutex_lock(some_mutex);
>
> can hang, but only if !CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP.
Right, but we should not use fixup_sleep() in this case, because its an
actual proper bug, we should fix it, not paper over it. Arguably we
should use preempt_schedule in mutex_lock() in that particular case, but
that's another discussion.
> So perhaps it makes sense to redefine it
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> #define fixup_sleep() (current->task_state_change = 0)
> #else
> #define fixup_sleep() do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> and change __might_sleep()
>
> - if (WARN(current->state != TASK_RUNNING,
> + if (WARN(current->state != TASK_RUNNING &&
> current->task_state_change != 0,
>
> ?
So I'm hesitant to go that way because it adds extra state dependency.
What if someone 'forgets' to use the *set*state() helpers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
