On 08/26, Kautuk Consul wrote:
>
> I got one thing wrong:
Yes, your description was not accurate, but
> From some more code review, both __down_common() and
> do_wait_for_common() inspect the signal_pending() only while in
> TASK_RUNNING.
this doesn't really matter, or I missed something.
We have too much problems with this TASK_DEAD state. I have to admit that
I no longer understand why we do not need a barrier after spin_unlock_wait().
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
// do_exit()
mb();
spin_unlock_wait();
tsk->state = TASK_DEAD;
schedule();
Previously I was convinced, but now I think that ttwu(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
still can change TASK_DEAD into TASK_RUNNING if CPU reorders spin_unlock_wait
and "state = TASK_DEAD".
Perhaps I am wrong and in any case we can fix this but there another problem,
in theory finish_task_switch() can race with RUNNING -> DEAD transition.
So I still think that the (incomplete) patch I sent probably makes sense, even
if it adds the ugly rq->dead check into __schedule().
Let's wait for Peter.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
