On 23/01/06, Gilles Chanteperdrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeroen Van den Keybus wrote:
> Hello,
[ skip-skip-skip ]
Since in xnshadow_harden, the running thread marks itself as suspended
before running wake_up_interruptible_sync, the gatekeeper will run when
schedule() get called, which in turn, depend on the CONFIG_PREEMPT*
configuration. In the non-preempt case, the current thread will be
suspended and the gatekeeper will run when schedule() is explicitely
called in xnshadow_harden(). In the preempt case, schedule gets called
when the outermost spinlock is unlocked in wake_up_interruptible_sync().

In fact, no.

wake_up_interruptible_sync() doesn't set the need_resched "flag" up. That's why it's "sync" actually.

Only if the need_resched was already set before calling wake_up_interruptible_sync(), then yes.

The secuence is as follows :

wake_up_interruptible_sync ---> wake_up_sync ---> wake_up_common(..., sync=1, ...) ---> ... ---> try_to_wake_up(..., sync=1)

Look at the end of  try_to_wake_up() to see when it calls resched_task(). The comment there speaks for itself.

So let's suppose need_resched == 0 (it's per-task of course).
As a result of wake_up_interruptible_sync() the new task is added to the current active run-queue but need_resched remains to be unset in the hope that the waker will call schedule() on its own soon.

I have CONFIG_PREEMPT set on my machine but I have never encountered a bug described by Jan.

The catalyst of the problem,  I guess, is  that some IRQ interrupts a task between wake_up_interruptible_sync() and schedule() and its ISR, in turn, wakes up another task which prio is higher than the one of our waker (as a result, the need_resched flag is set). And now, rescheduling occurs on return from irq handling code (ret_from_intr -> ...-> preempt_irq_schedule() -> schedule()).

Some events should coincide, yep. But I guess that problem does not occur every time?

I have not checked it yet but my presupposition that something as easy as :




could work... err.. and don't blame me if no, it's some one else who has written that nonsense :o)

Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to