From e6018c0f5c996e61639adce6a0697391a2861916 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:14:53 +0100 Subject: sched/wake_q: Document wake_q_add() The only guarantee provided by wake_q_add() is that a wakeup will happen after it, it does _NOT_ guarantee the wakeup will be delayed until the matching wake_up_q(). If wake_q_add() fails the cmpxchg() a concurrent wakeup is pending and that can happen at any time after the cmpxchg(). This means we should not rely on the wakeup happening at wake_q_up(), but should be ready for wake_q_add() to issue the wakeup. The delay; if provided (most likely); should only result in more efficient behaviour. Reported-by: Yongji Xie Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Waiman Long Cc: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/core.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) (limited to 'kernel/sched/core.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index a674c7db2f29..cc814933f7d6 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -396,6 +396,18 @@ static bool set_nr_if_polling(struct task_struct *p) #endif #endif +/** + * wake_q_add() - queue a wakeup for 'later' waking. + * @head: the wake_q_head to add @task to + * @task: the task to queue for 'later' wakeup + * + * Queue a task for later wakeup, most likely by the wake_up_q() call in the + * same context, _HOWEVER_ this is not guaranteed, the wakeup can come + * instantly. + * + * This function must be used as-if it were wake_up_process(); IOW the task + * must be ready to be woken at this location. + */ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task) { struct wake_q_node *node = &task->wake_q; -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2 From 4c4e3731564c8945ac5ac90fc2a1e1f21cb79c92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:14:53 +0100 Subject: sched/wake_q: Fix wakeup ordering for wake_q Notable cmpxchg() does not provide ordering when it fails, however wake_q_add() requires ordering in this specific case too. Without this it would be possible for the concurrent wakeup to not observe our prior state. Andrea Parri provided: C wake_up_q-wake_q_add { int next = 0; int y = 0; } P0(int *next, int *y) { int r0; /* in wake_up_q() */ WRITE_ONCE(*next, 1); /* node->next = NULL */ smp_mb(); /* implied by wake_up_process() */ r0 = READ_ONCE(*y); } P1(int *next, int *y) { int r1; /* in wake_q_add() */ WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1); /* wake_cond = true */ smp_mb__before_atomic(); r1 = cmpxchg_relaxed(next, 1, 2); } exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0) This "exists" clause cannot be satisfied according to the LKMM: Test wake_up_q-wake_q_add Allowed States 3 0:r0=0; 1:r1=1; 0:r0=1; 1:r1=0; 0:r0=1; 1:r1=1; No Witnesses Positive: 0 Negative: 3 Condition exists (0:r0=0 /\ 1:r1=0) Observation wake_up_q-wake_q_add Never 0 3 Reported-by: Yongji Xie Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Waiman Long Cc: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/core.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched/core.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index cc814933f7d6..d8d76a65cfdd 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -417,10 +417,11 @@ void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head, struct task_struct *task) * its already queued (either by us or someone else) and will get the * wakeup due to that. * - * This cmpxchg() executes a full barrier, which pairs with the full - * barrier executed by the wakeup in wake_up_q(). + * In order to ensure that a pending wakeup will observe our pending + * state, even in the failed case, an explicit smp_mb() must be used. */ - if (cmpxchg(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL)) + smp_mb__before_atomic(); + if (cmpxchg_relaxed(&node->next, NULL, WAKE_Q_TAIL)) return; get_task_struct(task); -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2