[PATCH 0/1] futex: don't spin waiting for PF_EXITING -> PF_EXITPIDONE transition
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Mon Feb 16 2015 - 15:15:49 EST
On 02/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And another question. Lets forget about this ->mm check. I simply can not
> understand this
> ret = (p->flags & PF_EXITPIDONE) ? -ESRCH : -EAGAIN
> logic in attach_to_pi_owner(). First of all, why do we need to retry if
> PF_EXITING is set but PF_EXITPIDONE is not? Why we can not simply ignore
> PF_EXITING and rely on exit_pi_state_list() if PF_EXITPIDONE is not set?
> I must have missed something but this looks buggy, I do not see any
> preemption point
I meant synchronization point, sorry for confusion.
> in this "retry" loop. Suppose that max_cpus=1 and rt_task()
> preempts the non-rt PF_EXITING owner. Looks like futex_lock_pi() can spin
> forever in this case? (OK, ignoring RT throttling).
Finally I forced myself to try to make the 1st patch ;) To remind, we have
more problems with robust+pi futexes, this needs another patch(es). Otherwise
we could (probably) even kill PF_EXITPIDONE.
Peter. I have no idea how to test it (except it obviously fixes the test-
case I sent before). IOW: please review.
And I still fail to understand why this PF_EXITING logic was added in the
first place. So I also have the problem with the changelog, it merely says
"don't do this because this is not needed".
On top of "check PF_KTHREAD rather than !p->mm to filter out kthreads" but
doesn't depend on it.
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/