Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:18:07 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>,
        Michel =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        amd-gfx list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        David.Panariti@amd.com, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Alex Deucher <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/scheduler: Don't call wait_event_killable for
 signaled process.
Message-ID: <20180425141807.GA8212@redhat.com>
References: <1524583836-12130-1-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
 <1524583836-12130-3-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
 <7313704c-0693-0bb9-8818-99cd2b7c0ca0@daenzer.net>
 <20180424194418.GE25142@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <aa2d8587-651e-2c24-a673-4682e7035a8f@amd.com>
 <20180424214027.GG25142@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <20180425132228.GC7592@redhat.com>
 <CAKMK7uF7LumuFWw3Xezw+QYDEhz6pFrJueZqFvSnmmoynYqpgQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uF7LumuFWw3Xezw+QYDEhz6pFrJueZqFvSnmmoynYqpgQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/25, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 04/24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>
> >> wait_event_killabel doesn't check for fatal_signal_pending before calling
> >> schedule, so definitely has a nice race there.
> >
> > This is fine. See the signal_pending_state() check in __schedule().
> >
> > And this doesn't differ from wait_event_interruptible(), it too doesn't
> > check signal_pending(), we rely on schedule() which must not block if the
> > caller is signalled/killed.
> >
> > The problem is that it is not clear what should fatal_signal_pending() or
> > even signal_pending() mean after exit_signals().
>
> Uh, I was totally thrown off in all the wait_event* macros and somehow
> landed in the _locked variants, which all need to recheck before they
> drop the lock, for efficiency reasons. See do_wait_intr().

Just in case, note that do_wait_intr() has to check signal_pending() for
completely differerent reason. We need to return non-zero code to stop the
main loop in __wait_event_interruptible_locked(); unlike ___wait_event()
it doesn't check signal_pending() itself.

Oleg.