Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, May 02 2013, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 14:23 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > > >> semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> > > >> commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
> > > >> failure under heavy load".
> > > >
> > > > But now you can't distinguish the timer expiring first, if the thread doing
> > > > the waiting gets delayed sufficiently long for the event to happen.
> > > 
> > > That can already happen, e.g.
> > > 
> > > 1. wakeup happens and condition is true.
> > > 2. we compute remaining jiffies > 0
> > > -> preempt
> > > 3. now wait_for_event_timeout returns.
> > > 
> > > Only difference is that the delay/preempt happens in between 1. and
> > > 2., and then suddenly the wake up didn't happen in time (with the
> > > current return code semantics).
> > > 
> > > So imo the current behaviour is simply a bug and will miss timely
> > > wakeups in some cases.
> > > 
> > > The other way round, namely wait_for_event_timeout taking longer than
> > > the timeout is expected (and part of the interface for every timeout
> > > function). So all current callers already need to be able to cope with
> > > random preemption/delays pushing the total time before the call to
> > > wait_for_event and checking the return value over the timeout, even
> > > when condition was signalled in time.
> > > 
> > > If there's any case which relies on accurate timeout detection that
> > > simply won't work with wait_for_event (they need an nmi or a hw
> > > timestamp counter or something similar).
> > 
> > I seriously doubt that anyone is depending on any sort of accuracy on
> > the return. 1 jiffy is not going to make or break anything - in fact,
> > jiffies could be incremented nsecs after the initial call. So a
> > granularity of at least 1 is going to be expected in any case.
> > 
> > The important bit here is that the API should behave as expected. And
> > the most logical way to code that is to check the return value. I can
> > easily see people forgetting to re-check the condition, hence you get a
> > bug. The fact that you and the original reporter already had accidents
> > with this is a clear sign that the logical way to use the API is not the
> > correct one.
> > 
> > IMHO, the change definitely makes sense.
> 
> Ok, so taking courage of this answer ;P How about also the following?
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index dbf7a78..5a62456 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -1515,7 +1515,11 @@ signed long __sched schedule_timeout(signed long
> timeout)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	expire = timeout + jiffies;
> +	/*
> +	 * We can't be sure how close we are to the next tick, so +1 to
> +	 * guarantee that we wait at least timeout amount.
> +	 */
> +	expire = timeout + jiffies + 1;
>  
>  	setup_timer_on_stack(&timer, process_timeout, (unsigned long)current);
>  	__mod_timer(&timer, expire, false, TIMER_NOT_PINNED);
> 
> 
> It'd plug a similar hole for wait_event_timeout() and similar users, who
> don't compensate for the above..

Any jiffy based API is going to have this issue. I think it's different
from the original patch, which just makes the API potentially return
something that is confusing.

So not sure on the above, sorry.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/