Re: General question about TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and schedule_timeout()

[kautuk.c @samsung.com]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Shan Hai <haishan.bai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 02:18 PM, Shan Hai wrote:
>>
>> On 09/01/2011 10:09 AM, Yong Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:18:19PM +0530, sifram rajas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a general question about the following 2 lines of code I see
>>>> all over the kernel:
>>>> 1         set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) ;
>>>> 2         schedule_timeout(<some value>);
>>>>
>>>> In the above code, if we encounter an interrupt after executing line
>>>> 1, we will end up
>>>> call schedule() from the architecture specific code for CONFIG_PREEMPT
>>>> kernels, after
>>>> the interrupt handler has been invokled.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> This will cause the current task to sleep interruptibly forever
>>
>> Actually, sleeping forever in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state is not correct,
>> because even though the task is preempted by higher priority one
>> it will finally get a chance to run, but you will get time out value
>> of <some value> + preemption latency.
>>
>>>> instead of for a certain timeout interval.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> schedule() will not put an preempted task to sleep, see:
>>
>> This might be problematic, because on the IRQ to preemption check path
>> the PREEMPT_ACTIVE was already set and the following 'if' statement
>> could not hold because of
>> !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE) == false

Yes.

>>
>> and the pick_next_task() might put the preempted task to sleep.
>>

pick_next_task() will simply select the next task for scheduling.
After all running tasks have been scheduled then this preempted task
will also be rescheduled
as it is still on this runqueue.

I do not think that this will put this preempted it to sleep.
Reason: Although the state is still set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, the
task is not removed
from the runqueue as !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE) == false.


>
> I mean when the state of task is TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE the preempted task will
> be put to sleep, its true in sifram's case.

I disagree.Yong is still right in this scenario as the task will
remain on the runqueue due to
the !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE) == false.

>
> Yong is right on stating "schedule() will not put an preempted task to
> sleep",
> its true for the task state of which is TASK_RUNNING.

Since TASK_RUNNING is defined as 0, the task remains on the runqueue here also.

>
> Cheers
> Shan Hai
>
>> Correct me on any misunderstanding :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Shan Hai
>>
>>> asmlinkage void __sched schduule(void)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>>         if (prev->state&&  !(preempt_count()&  PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
>>>                 if (unlikely(signal_pending_state(prev->state, prev))) {
>>>                         prev->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>>>                 } else {
>>>        ...
>>>        }
>>>         }
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yong
>>>
>>>> Won't this defeat the purpose of the above code to schedule out or
>>>> sleep for a certain finite timeout ?
>>>> If yes, then what are the techniques to solve this problem ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sifram.
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
>>>> in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/