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:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:08:41 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     "Kohli, Gaurav" <gkohli@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, mingo@kernel.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kthread/smpboot: Serialize kthread parking against
 wakeup
Message-ID: <20180605150841.GA24053@redhat.com>
References: <f134c8d8-e56f-bf29-0177-e6702ae79f2b@codeaurora.org>
 <20180501113132.GF12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <745d762d-9ab3-0749-9b87-9bb03d913071@codeaurora.org>
 <20180501131904.GG12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <9b289790-9b3a-73bd-7166-bf39f32cefd8@codeaurora.org>
 <20180502082011.GB12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <830d7225-af90-a55a-991a-bb2023d538f1@codeaurora.org>
 <cdd5d434-9c11-7c19-2895-0f7f3811eb11@codeaurora.org>
 <55221a5b-dd52-3359-f582-86830dd9f205@codeaurora.org>
 <ba12bc49-33c0-b4ee-05cf-f84124bd66cc@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ba12bc49-33c0-b4ee-05cf-f84124bd66cc@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I have to admit that I didn't try to follow this discussion, somehow I thought
that the plan was to use set_special_state(PARKED)...

On 06/05, Kohli, Gaurav wrote:
>
> As last mentioned on mail, we are still seeing issue with the latest
> approach and below is the susceptible race as mentioned earlier..
> controller Thread                               CPUHP Thread
> takedown_cpu
> kthread_park
> kthread_parkme
> Set KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK
>                                                 smpboot_thread_fn
>                                                 set Task interruptible
>
>
> wake_up_process
>  if (!(p->state & state))
>                 goto out;
>
>                                                 Kthread_parkme
>                                                 SET TASK_PARKED
>                                                 schedule
>                                                 raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> ttwu_remote
> waiting for __task_rq_lock
>                                                 context_switch
>
>                                                 finish_lock_switch
>
>
>
>                                                 Case TASK_PARKED
>                                                 kthread_park_complete
>
>
> SET Running

I think you are right.

And, now that I look at 85f1abe0019fcb3ea10df7029056cf42702283a8
("kthread, sched/wait: Fix kthread_parkme() completion issue") I see this note
int the changelog:

	The alternative is to promote TASK_PARKED to a special state, this
	guarantees wait_task_inactive() cannot observe a 'stale' TASK_RUNNING
	and we'll end up doing the right thing, but this preserves the whole
	icky business of potentially migating the still runnable thing.

OK, but __kthread_parkme() can be preempted before it calls schedule(), so the
caller still can be migrated? Plus kthread_park_complete() can be called twice.

No?

Oleg.