Please:
 - add some RT developers on Cc:
 - add lkml
 - use [PATCH RT] instead just [PATCH] so it is visible that you target
   the RT tree.

On 2019-05-08 15:57:28 [-0500], miny...@acm.org wrote:
> From: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com>
> 
> The function call do_wait_for_common() has a race condition that
> can result in lockups waiting for completions.  Adding the thread
> to (and removing the thread from) the wait queue for the completion
> is done outside the do loop in that function.  However, if the thread
> is woken up, the swake_up_locked() function will delete the entry
> from the wait queue.  If that happens and another thread sneaks
> in and decrements the done count in the completion to zero, the
> loop will go around again, but the thread will no longer be in the
> wait queue, so there is no way to wake it up.
> 
> Fix it by adding/removing the thread to/from the wait queue inside
> the do loop.

So you are saying:
        T0                      T1                          T2
        wait_for_completion()
         do_wait_for_common()
          __prepare_to_swait()
           schedule()
                               complete()
                                x->done++ (0 -> 1)
                                raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
                                 swake_up_locked()           
wait_for_completion()
                                  wake_up_process(T0)
                                  list_del_init()
                                raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore()
                                                              
raw_spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock)
         raw_spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock)                      x->done != 
UINT_MAX, 1 -> 0
                                                               return 1
                                                              
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock)
         while (!x->done && timeout),
         continue loop, not enqueued
         on &x->wait

The difference compared to the non-swait based implementation is that
swake_up_locked() removes woken up tasks from the list while the other
implementation (wait_queue_entry based, default_wake_function()) does
not. Buh

One question for the upstream completion implementation:
completion_done() returns true if there are no waiters. It acquires the
wait.lock to ensure that complete()/complete_all() is done. However,
once complete releases the lock it is guaranteed that the wake_up() (for
the waiter) occurred. The waiter task still needs to be remove itself
from the wait-queue before the completion can be removed.
Do I miss something?

> Fixes: a04ff6b4ec4ee7e ("completion: Use simple wait queues")
> Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com>
> ---
> I sent the wrong version of this, I had spotted this before but didn't
> fix it here.  Adding the thread to the wait queue needs to come after
> the signal check.  Sorry about the noise.
> 
>  kernel/sched/completion.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> index 755a58084978..4f9b4cc0c95a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c
> @@ -70,20 +70,20 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x,
>                  long (*action)(long), long timeout, int state)
>  {
>       if (!x->done) {
> -             DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(wait);
> -
> -             __prepare_to_swait(&x->wait, &wait);

you can keep DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE remove just __prepare_to_swait()

>               do {
> +                     DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(wait);
> +
>                       if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
>                               timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
>                               break;
>                       }
> +                     __prepare_to_swait(&x->wait, &wait);

add this, yes and you are done.

>                       __set_current_state(state);
>                       raw_spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
>                       timeout = action(timeout);
>                       raw_spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
> +                     __finish_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
>               } while (!x->done && timeout);
> -             __finish_swait(&x->wait, &wait);
>               if (!x->done)
>                       return timeout;
>       }

Sebastian

Reply via email to