Re: [PATCH]: kthread: Fix memory ordering in __kthread_parkme

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>  static void __kthread_parkme(struct kthread *self)
>  {
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
> +	set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
>  	while (test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK, &self->flags)) {
>  		if (!test_and_set_bit(KTHREAD_IS_PARKED, &self->flags))
>  			complete(&self->parked);
>  		schedule();
> -		__set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
> +		set_current_state(TASK_PARKED);
>  	}

Perhaps it makses sense to do set_current_state(PARKED) once at the start
of "for (;;)" loop, but this is cosmetic.

What if kthread_unpark() is called right after test_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK)
and KTHREAD_IS_PARKED is not set? It seems that __kthread_unpark() should
call wake_up_state() unconditionally ?

Oleg.

--
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/