Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751450Ab3FDVlV (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:41:21 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:59003 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751186Ab3FDVlT (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:41:19 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,802,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="348153887" Message-ID: <1370382051.8432.16.camel@ideak-mobl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout() From: Imre Deak To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , Daniel Vetter , Dave Jones , David Howells , Jens Axboe , Linus Torvalds , Lukas Czerner , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:40:51 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1370381717.8432.14.camel@ideak-mobl> References: <20130604192818.GA31316@redhat.com> <1370381717.8432.14.camel@ideak-mobl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3547 Lines: 104 On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 00:35 +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 21:28 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Just noticed this commit... > > > > commit 4c663cfc523a88d97a8309b04a089c27dc57fd7e > > Author: Imre Deak > > Date: Fri May 24 15:55:09 2013 -0700 > > > > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and > > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be > > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout > > elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up > > handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be > > calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the > > condition became true before the timeout has passed. > > > > OK, agreed. > > > > --- a/include/linux/wait.h > > +++ b/include/linux/wait.h > > @@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ do { \ > > if (!ret) \ > > break; \ > > } \ > > + if (!ret && (condition)) \ > > + ret = 1; \ > > finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \ > > } while (0) > > > > Well, this evaluates "condition" twice, perhaps it would be more > > clean to do, say, > > > > #define __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, ret) \ > > do { \ > > DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \ > > \ > > for (;;) { \ > > prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); \ > > if (condition) { \ > > if (!ret) \ > > ret = 1; \ > > break; \ > > } else if (!ret) \ > > break; \ > > ret = schedule_timeout(ret); \ > > } \ > > finish_wait(&wq, &__wait); \ > > } while (0) > > > > but this is minor. > > > > @@ -233,8 +235,9 @@ do { \ > > * wake_up() has to be called after changing any variable that could > > * change the result of the wait condition. > > * > > - * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, and the remaining > > - * jiffies if the condition evaluated to true before the timeout elapsed. > > + * The function returns 0 if the @timeout elapsed, or the remaining > > + * jiffies (at least 1) if the @condition evaluated to %true before > > + * the @timeout elapsed. > > > > This is still not true if timeout == 0. > > > > Shouldn't we also change wait_event_timeout() ? Say, > > > > #define wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, timeout) \ > > ({ \ > > long __ret = timeout; \ > > if (!(condition)) \ > > __wait_event_timeout(wq, condition, __ret); \ > > else if (!__ret) \ > > __ret = 1; \ > > __ret; \ > > }) > > > > Or wait_event_timeout(timeout => 0) is not legal in a non-void context? > > > > To me the code like > > > > long wait_for_something(bool nonblock) > > { > > timeout = nonblock ? 0 : DEFAULT_TIMEOUT; > > return wait_event_timeout(..., timeout); > > } > > > > looks reasonable and correct. But it is not? > > I don't see why it would be not legal. Note though that in the above > form wait_event_timeout(cond, 0) would still schedule() if cond is > false, which is not what I'd expect from a non-blocking function. Ah sorry, if you also rewrite __wait_event_timeout() then timeout=>0 wouldn't schedule(), so things would work as expected. --Imre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/