+4
−3
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
Gaurav reported a problem with __kthread_parkme() where a concurrent
try_to_wake_up() could result in competing stores to ->state which,
when the TASK_PARKED store got lost bad things would happen.
The comment near set_current_state() actually mentions this competing
store, but only mentions the case against TASK_RUNNING. This same
store, with different timing, can happen against a subsequent !RUNNING
store.
This normally is not a problem, because as per that same comment, the
!RUNNING state store is inside a condition based wait-loop:
for (;;) {
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
if (!need_sleep)
break;
schedule();
}
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
If we loose the (first) TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE store to a previous
(concurrent) wakeup, the schedule() will NO-OP and we'll go around the
loop once more.
The problem here is that the TASK_PARKED store is not inside the
KTHREAD_SHOULD_PARK condition wait-loop.
There is a genuine issue with sleeps that do not have a condition;
this is addressed in a subsequent patch.
Reported-by:
Gaurav Kohli <gkohli@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by:
Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by:
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by:
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE