Searched hist:e0acd0a6 (Results 1 - 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /linux-master/arch/x86/include/asm/ | ||
| H A D | spinlock.h | diff e0acd0a6 Mon Aug 12 10:14:00 MDT 2013 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); schedule(); can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition, it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending). However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with "if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section. The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already does by the same reason. We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(), for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change the default implementation. While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers. Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for prepare_to_wait(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
| /linux-master/include/linux/ | ||
| H A D | spinlock.h | diff e0acd0a6 Mon Aug 12 10:14:00 MDT 2013 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); schedule(); can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition, it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending). However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with "if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section. The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already does by the same reason. We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(), for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change the default implementation. While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers. Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for prepare_to_wait(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
| /linux-master/kernel/sched/ | ||
| H A D | core.c | diff e0acd0a6 Mon Aug 12 10:14:00 MDT 2013 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); schedule(); can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition, it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending). However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with "if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section. The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already does by the same reason. We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(), for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change the default implementation. While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers. Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for prepare_to_wait(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
Completed in 724 milliseconds