Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race with try_to_wake_up()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:58:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> However, the very fact that another CPU can look at this task_struct
> means that we still need spin_unlock_wait(). If nothing else to ensure
> that try_to_wake_up()->spin_unlock(pi_lock) won't write into the memory
> we are are going to free.

task_struct is RCU freed, if it still has a 'reference' to the task, it
shouldn't be going 'away', right?

> So I think the comment in do exit should be updated too, and smp_mb()
> should be moved under raw_spin_unlock_wait() but ...
> 
> But. If am right, doesn't this mean we that have even more problems with
> postmortem wakeups??? Why ttwu() can't _start_ after spin_unlock_wait ?

ttwu should bail at: if (!(p->state & state)) goto out; That should
never match with TASK_DEAD.

Either that; or I should go sleep already :-) I shifted 7 hours
yesterday, so I'm still somewhat jet-lagged.
--
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/