Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:07:57 +0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/sched/core] Add comments to aid in safer usage of
 swake_up.
Message-ID: <20170616010757.kegygn4ndivdb4wh@tardis>
References: <20170609124554.GF3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170613192308.173dd86a@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170613234205.GD3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170613211547.49814d25@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170614035843.GI3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170614091015.01d7dc89@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170614110240.10abe2ed@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170614162558.GA2368@templeofstupid.com>
 <20170615041828.zk3a3sfyudm5p6nl@tardis>
 <20170615175629.GE3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6exkrcuqtmy3iipr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170615175629.GE3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170225 (1.8.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2918
Lines: 81


--6exkrcuqtmy3iipr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:56:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> > >=20
> > > FWLIW, I agree.  There was a smb_mb() in RT-linux's equivalent of
> > > swait_activate().
> > >=20
> > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rt-users/msg10340.html
> > >=20
> > > If the barrier goes in swait_active() then we don't have to require a=
ll
> > > of the callers of swait_active and swake_up to issue the barrier
> > > instead.  Handling this in swait_active is likely to be less error
> > > prone.  Though, we could also do something like wq_has_sleeper() and =
use
> > > that preferentially in swake_up and its variants.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > I think it makes more sense that we delete the swait_active() in
> > swake_up()? Because we seems to encourage users to do the quick check on
> > wait queue on their own, so why do the check again in swake_up()?
> > Besides, wake_up() doesn't call waitqueue_activie() outside the lock
> > critical section either.
> >=20
> > So how about the patch below(Testing is in progress)? Peter?
>=20
> It is quite possible that a problem I am seeing is caused by this, but
> there are reasons to believe otherwise.  And in any case, the problem is
> quite rare, taking tens or perhaps even hundreds of hours of rcutorture
> to reproduce.
>=20
> So, would you be willing to create a dedicated swait torture test to check
> this out?  The usual approach would be to create a circle of kthreads,
> with each waiting on the previous kthread and waking up the next one.
> Each kthread, after being awakened, checks a variable that its waker
> sets just before the wakeup.  Have another kthread check for hangs.
>=20
> Possibly introduce timeouts and random delays to stir things up a bit.
>=20
> But maybe such a test already exists.  Does anyone know of one?  I don't
> see anything obvious.
>=20

Your waketorture patchset[1] seems to be something similar, at least a
good start ;-)

As we don't know which kind of scenario will trigger the problem easily,
I will play around with different ones, and hopefully we can find a way.

Regards,
Boqun

[1]: https://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-kernel&m=3D146602969518960

> Interested?
>=20
> 							Thanx, Paul
>=20
[...]

--6exkrcuqtmy3iipr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEj5IosQTPz8XU1wRHSXnow7UH+rgFAllDL2oACgkQSXnow7UH
+rhLewf9Ep9mG2jCFYoiP/cKwyCkjtE19Bx0mZQYiM0cfVTKHzC8U85Qe81/97JR
qaH+PNmNPPdo6AO8cG83jc4hjECMS8fFcrG0ptMeqyunjF2Gi4ChlXKZRYu/IX9E
yowIgZZClpBx5sPf5XNLXOfvrCoiI/IpkIuEnbE52lP+Vbxw0Zv0rXYC4K3DCbmK
CyIeSBWmC8BRbC+P1EJMo33UyJO7mqxZXC4zhIzYStbgG2Z12QEJJ4YX7NaAgIA4
LaqLvpNrqjXoTwODUNEg32xRa0gyAU7/CN7CoZv0DO/U5TY1TnFg4ibXt1uhK9Lb
VQQugFDzQq5drTMsRlxsVV5sqGKQCQ==
=6JJv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6exkrcuqtmy3iipr--