Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755192AbYBGJ6S (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 04:58:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756125AbYBGJ55 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 04:57:57 -0500 Received: from matups.math.u-psud.fr ([129.175.50.4]:40767 "EHLO matups.math.u-psud.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752839AbYBGJ5z convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2008 04:57:55 -0500 From: Duncan Sands To: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH][USBATM]: convert heavy init dances to kthread API Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:57:40 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20080118.763038) Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <47A9DD30.5040604@openvz.org> <200802061820.54870.baldrick.bulk@free.fr> <47AACE2B.2040404@openvz.org> In-Reply-To: <47AACE2B.2040404@openvz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802071057.41201.baldrick.bulk@free.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3387 Lines: 79 Hi Pavel, > >> @@ -1014,11 +1015,7 @@ static int usbatm_do_heavy_init(void *arg) > >> struct usbatm_data *instance = arg; > >> int ret; > >> > >> - daemonize(instance->driver->driver_name); > >> allow_signal(SIGTERM); > >> - instance->thread_pid = current->pid; > >> - > >> - complete(&instance->thread_started); > > > > One reason the completion existed to make sure that the thread was not > > sent SIGTERM before the above call to allow_signal(SIGTERM). So I think > > you have opened up a (tiny) race by deleting it. > > Nope. See my answer below :) > > >> static int usbatm_heavy_init(struct usbatm_data *instance) > >> { > >> - int ret = kernel_thread(usbatm_do_heavy_init, instance, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES); > >> - > >> - if (ret < 0) { > >> - usb_err(instance, "%s: failed to create kernel_thread (%d)!\n", __func__, ret); > > > > Please don't delete this message. > > > >> - return ret; > >> - } > >> + struct task_struct *t; > >> > >> - wait_for_completion(&instance->thread_started); > >> + t = kthread_create(usbatm_do_heavy_init, instance, > >> + instance->driver->driver_name); > >> + if (IS_ERR(t)) > >> + return PTR_ERR(t); > >> > >> + instance->thread = t; > >> + wake_up_process(t); > > > > Does the kthread API guarantee that the kthread is not running until you call > > It does. That's why the race, you mentioned above is impossible. I don't see why it helps. The race I mentioned occurs when the kthread creating thread runs too fast compared to the kthread. Let C (creator) be the thread running usbatm_heavy_init, and K (kthread) be the created kthread. When C calls wake_up_process, thread K starts running, however on an SMP system C may also be running. Now suppose that for some reason K takes a long time to execute the command "allow_signal(SIGTERM);", but that C runs very fast and immediately executes the disconnect callback, and sends the signal to K before K manages to execute allow_signal. This is the race, and it can only be fixed by making C run slower (thus the completion). Of course this is fantastically unlikely which is why I described it as tiny, but as far as I can see it is a theoretical possibility. I don't see that wake_up_process fixes it, it just makes it even less likely. > > By the way, the right thing to do is (I think) to replace the thread with > > a workqueue and have users of usbatm register a "shut_down" callback > > rather than using signals: the disconnect method would call shut_down > > rathering than trying to kill the thread. ?That way all this mucking > > around with pids etc wouldn't be needed. ?All users of usbatm would need > > to be modified. ?I managed to convince myself once that they could all be > > fixed up in a fairly simple manner thanks to a few tricks and a > > completion or two, but I don't recall the details... > > Well, that would be also great, since kill_proc will be gone - that's what > I'm trying to achieve. I think your patch should go in, since I'm not likely to ever implement the scheme I suggested - I don't use this hardware anymore and have lost interest in the driver. Best wishes, Duncan. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/