sched: fix the theoretical signal_wake_up() vs schedule() race
This is only theoretical, but after try_to_wake_up(p) was changed
to check p->state under p->pi_lock the code like
__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
schedule();
can miss a signal. This is the special case of wait-for-condition,
it relies on try_to_wake_up/schedule interaction and thus it does
not need mb() between __set_current_state() and if(signal_pending).
However, this __set_current_state() can move into the critical
section protected by rq->lock, now that try_to_wake_up() takes
another lock we need to ensure that it can't be reordered with
"if (signal_pending(current))" check inside that section.
The patch is actually one-liner, it simply adds smp_wmb() before
spin_lock_irq(rq->lock). This is what try_to_wake_up() already
does by the same reason.
We turn this wmb() into the new helper, smp_mb__before_spinlock(),
for better documentation and to allow the architectures to change
the default implementation.
While at it, kill smp_mb__after_lock(), it has no callers.
Perhaps we can also add smp_mb__before/after_spinunlock() for
prepare_to_wait().
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
3 files changed