Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 02:25:09AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, and the comments ;)
> 
> I showed this patch only to complete the discussion, I am not going to
> send it now.

Fair enough :-)

> But thanks for the review!
> 
> > > +static void kthread_kill(struct task_struct *k, struct kthread *kthread)
> > > +{
> > > +	smp_mb__before_atomic();
> >
> > test_bit isn't actually an atomic op so this barrier is 'wrong'. If you
> > need an MB there smp_mb() it is.
> 
> Hmm. I specially checked Documentation/memory-barriers.txt,
> 
>  (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
>  (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
> 
>      These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
>      decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
>      reference counting.  These functions do not imply memory barriers.
> 
>      These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
>      value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Either you or memory-barriers.txt should be fixed ;)

Its in there, just not explicitly. All those functions listed are
read-modify-write ops, test_bit() is not, its just a read. But yes I
suppose we could make that more explicit.

Also test_bit() obviously does return a value, so it doesn't fall in the
{set,clear}_bit() class.

Does the change below clarify things?

> > > +	if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags)) {
> > > +		unsigned long flags;
> > > +		bool kill = true;
> > > +
> > > +		if (lock_task_sighand(k, &flags)) {
> >
> > Since we do the double test thing here, with the set side also done
> > under the lock, so we really need a barrier above?
> 
> Yes, otherwise set_kthread_wants_signal() can miss a signal. And note
> that the 2nd check is only needed to ensure that we can not race
> with set_kthread_wants_signal(false).
> 
> BUT!!! I have to admit that I simply do not know if there is any arch
> 
> 	set_bit(&word, X);
> 	test_bit(&word, Y);
> 
> which actually needs mb() in between, the word is the same. Probably
> not.

DEC Alpha? Wasn't it the problem there that dependencies didn't actually
work as expected?

Added Paul to Cc.

---
 Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 9 +++------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
index 22a969cdd476..0d97c99ad957 100644
--- a/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
+++ b/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
@@ -1594,12 +1594,9 @@ CPU from reordering them.
  (*) smp_mb__before_atomic();
  (*) smp_mb__after_atomic();
 
-     These are for use with atomic (such as add, subtract, increment and
-     decrement) functions that don't return a value, especially when used for
-     reference counting.  These functions do not imply memory barriers.
-
-     These are also used for atomic bitop functions that do not return a
-     value (such as set_bit and clear_bit).
+     These are for use with atomic/bitop (r-m-w) functions that don't return
+     a value (eg. atomic_{add,sub,inc,dec}(), {set,clear}_bit()). These
+     functions do not imply memory barriers.
 
      As an example, consider a piece of code that marks an object as being dead
      and then decrements the object's reference count:
--
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/