Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against wakeup

[Kohli, Gaurav]

On 5/1/2018 5:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:10:53PM +0530, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
> > Yes with loop, it will reset TASK_PARKED but that is not happening in the
> > dumps we have seen.
>
> But was that with or without the fixed wait-loop? I don't care about
> stuff you might have seen with the current code, that is clearly broken.
>
> > > takedown_cpu() can proceed beyond smpboot_park_threads() and kill the
> > > CPU before any of the threads are parked -- per having the complete()
> > > before hitting schedule().
> > >
> > > And, afaict, that is harmless. When we go offline, sched_cpu_dying() ->
> > > migrate_tasks() will migrate any still runnable threads off the cpu.
> > > But because at this point the thread must be in the PARKED wait-loop, it
> > > will hit schedule() and go to sleep eventually.
> > >
> > > Also note that kthread_unpark() does __kthread_bind() to rebind the
> > > threads.
> > >
> > > Aaaah... I think I've spotted a problem there. We clear SHOULD_PARK
> > > before we rebind, so if the thread lost the first PARKED store,
> > > does the completion, gets migrated, cycles through the loop and now
> > > observes !SHOULD_PARK and bails the wait-loop, then __kthread_bind()
> > > will forever wait.
> >
> > So during next unpark
> > __kthread_unpark -> __kthread_bind -> wait_task_inactive (this got failed,
> > as current state is running so failed on below call:
>
> Aah, yes, I seem to have mis-remembered how wait_task_inactive() works.
> And it is indeed still a problem..
>
> Let me ponder what the best solution is, it's a bit of a mess.

Sure , Thanks a lot.
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, 
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.