Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:28:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@google.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Fix race condition between kthread_parkme() and
 kthread_unpark()
Message-ID: <20170929082838.z2eyp67hbdfcpibj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170429023236.60452-1-junaids@google.com>
 <20170927121706.g5qydxv3v2usmdd5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAL-GctE0BLVk=ps09dnir8pcpnfzg88jMK4CKkRVmY7-ho87nQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709290958450.1890@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709290958450.1890@nanos>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1025
Lines: 22

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 09:59:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, Junaid Shahid wrote:
> 
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > It looks like try_cmpxchg is not available on non-x86 archs, but other than
> > that the version that you proposed looks good.
> > 
> > One thing that I am a bit curious about is that the original code, before
> > either patch, had a test_and_set_bit for KTHREAD_IS_PARKED rather than just
> > a set_bit. I can't think of any reason why that was needed, since it
> > doesn't look like TASK_PARKED tasks are susceptible to spurious wakeups. Do
> > you by any chance happen to know if there was any specific reason for it?
> 
> Everything is susceptible to spurious wakeups and has to deal with it.

Right, we should code as if they are at all times possible. Currently,
for TASK_PARKED, I don't think they can happen, but I've had patches
that introduce them on purpose (regardless the state) just to stress the
code.

IIRC only TASK_STOPPED and/or TASK_TRACED hard rely on not getting any.