lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] autofs4: use wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible
From
Date
On 01/04/18 14:21, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 10:01:41AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On 01/04/18 09:31, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On 31/03/18 10:28, Andrei Vagin wrote:
>>>> In "autofs4: use wait_event_killable", wait_event_interruptible() was
>>>> replaced by wait_event_killable(), but in this case we have to use
>>>> wake_up() instead of wake_up_interruptible().
>>>
>>> Why do you believe wake_up() is needed rather than wake_up_interruptible()?
>>>
>>> Now that I'm thinking about the wake up I'm wondering if this is in fact
>>> what's needed. Rather, I think maybe wake_up_all() is probably the only
>>> one that will actually do what's needed.
>>
>> Ok, so that 1 is the number of exclusive waiters.
>> So what is the difference between the two wake_up calls in this case?
>
> In CRIU, we have the autofs test:
> https://github.com/checkpoint-restore/criu/blob/master/test/zdtm/static/autofs.c
>
> We run CRIU tests on the linux-next kernels and a few days ago this test
> started to fail, actually it hangs up.
>
> I found that wake_up_interruptible() doesn't wake up a thread, which is
> waiting.
>
> try_to_wake_up() has the argument "state", it is the mask of task states
> that can be woken.
>
> For wake_up_interruptible(), state is TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE.
> For wake_up(). state is TASK_NORMAL (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>
> If we use wait_event_killable(), the task sleeps in the TASK_KILLABLE
> state, so wake_up_interruptible() isn't suitable in this case.
>
> #define TASK_KILLABLE (TASK_WAKEKILL | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>
> I checked that our test passes with this patch. I mean that we had a
> real problem and we checked that it is fixed by this patch.

Ahh, I see, wake_up_*() functions do just what they say, they skip
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks.

Now it makes sense.

Acked-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>

Andrew could you a take this patch as well please.

>
> Thanks,
> Andrei
>
>>
>>>
>>> There's an individual wait queue for each mount, there can be multiple
>>> waiters for a mount, they all should be woken up when the daemon signals
>>> mount completion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
>>>> Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>>> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/autofs4/waitq.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>>>> index c160e9b3aa0f..be9c3dc048ab 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/waitq.c
>>>> @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ int autofs4_wait_release(struct autofs_sb_info *sbi, autofs_wqt_t wait_queue_tok
>>>> kfree(wq->name.name);
>>>> wq->name.name = NULL; /* Do not wait on this queue */
>>>> wq->status = status;
>>>> - wake_up_interruptible(&wq->queue);
>>>> + wake_up(&wq->queue);
>>>> if (!--wq->wait_ctr)
>>>> kfree(wq);
>>>> mutex_unlock(&sbi->wq_mutex);
>>>>
>>>
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-03 01:41    [W:0.054 / U:11.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site