Re: [PATCH 2/7] freezer: add missing mb's to freezer_count() andfreezer_should_skip()
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Tue Oct 23 2012 - 11:38:04 EST
On 10/22, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 07:44:04PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > We probably have another similar race. If ptrace_stop()->may_ptrace_stop()
> > returns false, the task does
> > __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > // no mb in between
> > try_to_freeze();
> > And this can race with task_is_stopped_or_traced() check in the same way.
> > (of course this is only theoretical).
> > do_signal_stop() is probably fine, we can rely on ->siglock.
> Hmm.... Guess we should drop __ from set_current_state.
Or we can change ptrace_stop() and do_signal_stop() to use freezer_do_not_count/
freezer_count and remove task_is_stopped_or_traced() from update_if_frozen()
and try_to_freeze_tasks(). But this means that do_signal_stop() will call
try_to_freeze() twice, unless we add __freezer_count() which only clears
> I wonder
> whether we should just add mb to freezing()? What do you think?
Yes, I thought about this too. I just do not know what would be better.
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/