Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special condition

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

(12/26/11 12:11 PM), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/26, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > > IIRC, this was already discussed a bit. Say, try_to_wake_up(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> > > can wakeup a TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE task if it temporary sets INTERRUPTIBLE but
> > > doesn't call schedule() in this state.
> >
> > Oleg-san,
> >
> > Could you point the discussion?
> > I don't understand yet how it occurred...
>
> Suppose that the task T does
>
> 	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> 	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	schedule();
>
> try_to_wake_up(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) in between can observe this task
> in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state. Then it can set RUNNING/WAKING after T
> sets ->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
>
> For example, this is possibly if T simply does wait_event() twice when
> the the 1st wait_event() doesn't sleep.
>
> Basically this is the same race you described, but I think you found
> the case when we can't tolerate the spurious wakeup.

Hi

I looked at scheduler code today briefly. now I'm afraid following code 
have similar race.


        if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
                rq->nr_uninterruptible--;



Can't following schenario be happen?


CPU0                    CPU1
--------------------------------------------------------
deactivate_task()
                       task->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
activate_task()
  rq->nr_uninterruptible--;

                       schedule()
                         deactivate_task()
                           rq->nr_uninterruptible++;

Totally, nr_uninterruptible wasn't incremented.


I'm still not sure. I need to read more sched code.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/