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

[Yasunori Goto]

> On 01/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 21:01 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> >
> > > Do you mean the following patch?
> >
> > Yes, something like that. At that point ->state should be TASK_RUNNING
> > (since we are after all running). The unlock_wait() will synchronize
> > against any in-progress ttwu() while its fast path is a non-atomic
> > compare. Any ttwu after this will bail since it will either observe
> > TASK_RUNNING or TASK_DEAD, neither are a state it will act upon.
> >
> > Now the only question that remains is if we need the full memory barrier
> > or if we can get away with less.
> >
> > I guess the mb separates the write to ->state (setting TASK_RUNNING)
> > from the read of ->pi_lock. The remote CPU must see the TASK_RUNNING,
> > and we must see ->pi_lock taken if it is.
> 
> Yes, I think we need the full mb, STORE vs LOAD.
> 
> > > --- linux-3.2-rc7.orig/kernel/exit.c
> > > +++ linux-3.2-rc7/kernel/exit.c
> > > @@ -1038,6 +1038,10 @@ NORET_TYPE void do_exit(long code)
> > >
> > >  	preempt_disable();
> > >  	exit_rcu();
> > > +
> > > +	smp_mb();
> > > +	raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
> > > +
> > >  	/* causes final put_task_struct in finish_task_switch(). */
> > >  	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
> 
> Interesting. Initially I thought this is wrong and we should do
> 
> 	raw_spin_unlock_wait(pi_lock);
> 
> 	mb();
> 
> 	tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
> 
> This "obviously" serializes LOAD(pi_lock) and STORE(state).
> 
> But when I re-read your explanation above I think you are right,
> mb() before unlock_wait() should work too, just it refers to
> state = RUNNING in the past.

Ok. Thansk for your agreement.
I'll test this patch.


-- 
Yasunori Goto 


--
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/