On 11/29/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:27:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> wake_up_q() should, per the barriers in wake_up_process, ensure that if
>> wake_a_add() fails, there will be a wakeup of that task after that
>> point.
>>
>> So if we put wake_up_q() at the location where wake_up_process() should
>> be, it should all work.
>>
>> The bug in question is that it can happen at any time after
>> wake_q_add(), not necessarily at wake_up_q().
> Hmm, I think we're missing a barrier in wake_q_add(); when cmpxchg()
> fails we still need an smp_mb().
>
> Something like so.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 3d87a28da378..69def558edf6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -400,6 +400,13 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct
> task_struct *task)
> {
> struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q;
>
> + /*
> + * Ensure, that when the below cmpxchg() fails, the corresponding
> + * wake_up_q() will observe our prior state.
> + *
> + * Pairs with the smp_mb() from wake_up_q()'s wake_up_process().
> + */
> + smp_mb();
> /*
> * Atomically grab the task, if ->wake_q is !nil already it means
> * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the
> @@ -408,7 +415,7 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct
> task_struct *task)
> * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full
> * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q().
> */
> - if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> + if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL))
> return;
>
> get_task_struct(task);
That can be costly for x86 which will now have 2 locked instructions.
Should we introduce a kind of special cmpxchg (e.g. cmpxchg_mb) that
will guarantee a memory barrier whether the operation fails or not?
Cheers,
Longman
