Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Sat Oct 04 2014 - 04:43:13 EST


On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:30:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Or. perhaps we can change wait_woken
> >
> > - set_current_state(mode);
> > + if (mode)
> > + set_current_state(mode);
> >
> >
> > then rfcomm_run() can do
> >
> > for (;;) {
> > rfcomm_process_sessions();
> >
> > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > if (kthread_should_stop())
> > break;
> > wait_woken(0);
> > }

> probably this makes more sense in this particular case...

Right, in which case the below needs a different justification, but you
said you were already thinking about it, so there must be something.

And clearly it needs a changelog to begin with :-)

A few nits below.

> --- x/kernel/kthread.c
> +++ x/kernel/kthread.c
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct kthread {
>
> enum KTHREAD_BITS {
> KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU = 0,
> + KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP,
> KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK,
> KTHREAD_IS_PARKED,
> @@ -442,6 +443,45 @@ int kthread_park(struct task_struct *k)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +void set_kthread_wants_signal(bool on)
> +{
> + struct kthread *kthread = to_kthread(current);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);
> + if (on) {
> + set_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);

All barriers must come with a comment :-)

> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> + if (kthread_should_stop())
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
> + } else {
> + clear_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + recalc_sigpending();
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&current->sighand->siglock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void kthread_kill(struct task_struct *k, struct kthread *kthread)
> +{
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();

test_bit isn't actually an atomic op so this barrier is 'wrong'. If you
need an MB there smp_mb() it is. Again, comment is missing.

> + if (test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags)) {
> + unsigned long flags;
> + bool kill = true;
> +
> + if (lock_task_sighand(k, &flags)) {

Since we do the double test thing here, with the set side also done
under the lock, so we really need a barrier above?

> + kill = test_bit(KTHREAD_WANTS_SIGNAL, &kthread->flags);
> + if (kill)
> + signal_wake_up(k, 0);
> + unlock_task_sighand(k, &flags);
> + }
> +
> + if (kill)
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + wake_up_process(k);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * kthread_stop - stop a thread created by kthread_create().
> * @k: thread created by kthread_create().
> @@ -469,7 +509,7 @@ int kthread_stop(struct task_struct *k)
> if (kthread) {
> set_bit(KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP, &kthread->flags);
> __kthread_unpark(k, kthread);
> - wake_up_process(k);
> + kthread_kill(k, kthread);
> wait_for_completion(&kthread->exited);
> }
> ret = k->exit_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/