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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:36:17 +0100 (CET)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        jeyu@kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, lpechacek@suse.cz, pavel@ucw.cz,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] livepatch: send a fake signal to all blocking
 tasks
In-Reply-To: <20171101164314.GA32760@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1711021128220.19544@san.suse.cz>
References: <20171031114853.841-1-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171031114853.841-2-mbenes@suse.cz> <20171101151355.GG20040@pathway.suse.cz> <20171101164314.GA32760@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 11/01, Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 2017-10-31 12:48:52, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > +		if (task->flags & PF_KTHREAD) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Wake up a kthread which still has not been migrated.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			wake_up_process(task);
> >
> > I have just noticed that freezer used wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > IMHO, we should do so as well.
> 
> I won't argue, but...
> 
> > wake_up_process() wakes also tasks in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state.
> > These might not be ready for an unexpected wakeup. For example,
> > see concat_dev_erase() in drivers/mtd/mtdcontact.c.
> 
> I'd say that concat_dev_erase() should be fixed, any code should be ready
> for spurious wakeup.

I agree.
 
> Note also that wake_up_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) won't wakeup the TASK_IDLE
> kthreads, and most of the kthreads which use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE should use
> TASK_IDLE today, because in most cases TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE was used to not
> contribute to loadavg.

Yes. Unfortunately, we have TASK_IDLE for more than two years now and 
nothing much has happened yet. TASK_IDLE is still used sporadically. I'd 
like to be on the safe side with livepatch and given that 
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE loops should be prepared for spurious wakeups by 
definition, I think it is better to have wake_up_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) 
there. At least till all "concat_dev_erase" beauties are fixed (sigh).

Miroslav

From 1582882798193826211@xxx Wed Nov 01 16:44:30 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582773844473281428
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums