summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/fs/hfs
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>2018-04-30 14:50:22 +0200
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2018-05-03 07:38:04 +0200
commit741a76b350897604c48fb12beff1c9b77724dc96 (patch)
tree2f2a010fb227f8c14853ab8bd5e17697d92054db /fs/hfs
parent457be908c83637ee10bda085a23dc05afa3b14a0 (diff)
downloadlinux-741a76b350897604c48fb12beff1c9b77724dc96.tar.bz2
kthread, sched/wait: Fix kthread_parkme() wait-loop
Gaurav reported a problem with __kthread_parkme() where a concurrent try_to_wake_up() could result in competing stores to ->state which, when the TASK_PARKED store got lost bad things would happen. The comment near set_current_state() actually mentions this competing store, but only mentions the case against TASK_RUNNING. This same store, with different timing, can happen against a subsequent !RUNNING store. This normally is not a problem, because as per that same comment, the !RUNNING state store is inside a condition based wait-loop: for (;;) { set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); if (!need_sleep) break; schedule(); } __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); If we loose the (first) TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE store to a previous (concurrent) wakeup, the schedule() will NO-OP and we'll go around the loop once more. The problem here is that the TASK_PARKED store is not inside the KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK condition wait-loop. There is a genuine issue with sleeps that do not have a condition; this is addressed in a subsequent patch. Reported-by: Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/hfs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions