On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:04:45PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/task_work.c
> > +++ b/kernel/task_work.c
> > @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ void task_work_run(void)
> > * the first entry == work, cmpxchg(task_works) should
> > * fail, but it can play with *work and other entries.
> > */
> > - raw_spin_unlock_wait(&task->pi_lock);
> > + raw_spin_lock(&task->pi_lock);
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&task->pi_lock);
>
> Well, bit the you need spin_lock_irq(). And this is one of the reasons
> why I personally think unlock_wait have some sense...
Good catch, and I clearly need to double-check the other commits for
any need to disable interrupts. Anyway, like this, with the addition
of a flags variable, correct?
> > + raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
I agree that the spin_unlock_wait() implementations would avoid the
deadlock with an acquisition from an interrupt handler, while also
avoiding the need to momentarily disable interrupts. The ->pi_lock is
a per-task lock, so I am assuming (perhaps naively) that contention is
not a problem. So is the overhead of interrupt disabling likely to be
noticeable here?
Thanx, Paul
