Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

On 1/24/2012 5:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 16:07 -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I looked at scheduler code today briefly. now I'm afraid following code 
>> have similar race.
>>
>>
>>          if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
>>                  rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't following schenario be happen?
>>
>>
>> CPU0                    CPU1
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> deactivate_task()
>>                         task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
>> activate_task()
>>    rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>>
>>                         schedule()
>>                           deactivate_task()
>>                             rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
>>
>> Totally, nr_uninterruptible wasn't incremented.
>>
>>
>> I'm still not sure. I need to read more sched code. 
> 
> You shouldn't ever set another tasks ->state. 

I'm sorry. I haven't catch your point. I think following step is
valid kernel code. Do you disagree?

>>                         task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
>>                         schedule()

--
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/