Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Huang Ying"
> <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Lai Jiangshan" <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Lai Jiangshan" <eag0628@xxxxxxxxx>, "Peter
> Zijlstra" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 2:03:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Possible lock-less list race in scheduler_ipi()
> 
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:35:23 +0000 (UTC)
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the compiler should never reorder loads/stores from/to
> > same memory location from a program order POV. What I had in mind
> > is a bit more far-fetched though: it would involve having the compiler
> > reorder this load after a store to another memory location, which
> > would in turn allow another execution context (interrupt or thread)
> > to corrupt the list.
> 
> You mean on another CPU? Because the code you are worried about has
> interrupts disabled.

I'm worried that another CPU could issue try_to_wake_up() on a
task concurrently with the llist iteration within sched_ttwu_pending().

AFAIU, ttwu_queue_remote() is called from ttwu_queue() without holding
the rq lock. So I'm wondering what prevents corruption of the wake_list
in this situation.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/