Re: [PATCH 02/11] wait: Provide infrastructure to deal with nested blocking

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 09/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> There are a few places that call blocking primitives from wait loops,
> provide infrastructure to support this without the typical
> task_struct::state collision.
>
> We record the wakeup in wait_queue_t::flags which leaves
> task_struct::state free to be used by others.

Sorry for delay. FWIW,

Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

> +/*
> + * DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wait_func);
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
woken_wake_function ;)

> +int woken_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Although this function is called under waitqueue lock, LOCK
> +	 * doesn't imply write barrier and the users expects write
> +	 * barrier semantics on wakeup functions.  The following
> +	 * smp_wmb() is equivalent to smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up()
> +	 * and is paired with set_mb() in wait_woken().
> +	 */
> +	smp_wmb(); /* C */
> +	wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;

Perhaps it is just me, but I was a bit confused by the comment above wmb().
Afaics, it is not that "users expects write barrier semantics", just we
need to ensure that

	CONDITION = true;
	wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;

can't be reordered (and this differs from smp_wmb() in try_to_wake_up()).
Otherwise we can obviously race with

	// wait_woken() -> set_mb()
	wait->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_WOKEN;
	mb();

	if (CONDITION)
		break;

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/