[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1652354304-17492-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 20:18:24 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: tj@...nel.org
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com,
johannes.berg@...el.com, tytso@....edu, willy@...radead.org,
david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
paolo.valente@...aro.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com,
melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, holt@....com
Subject: Re: [REPORT] syscall reboot + umh + firmware fallback
Tejun wrote:
> Hello,
Hello,
> I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly but it looks like "process B" column
I think you're interpreting the report correctly.
> is superflous given that it's waiting on the same lock to do the same thing
> that A is already doing (besides, you can't really halt the machine twice).
Indeed! I've been in a daze. I thought kernel_halt() can be called twice
by two different purposes. Sorry for the noise.
> What it's reporting seems to be ABBA deadlock between A waiting on
> umhelper_sem and C waiting on fw_st->completion. The report seems spurious:
>
> 1. wait_for_completion_killable_timeout() doesn't need someone to wake it up
> to make forward progress because it will unstick itself after timeout
> expires.
I have a question about this one. Yes, it would never been stuck thanks
to timeout. However, IIUC, timeouts are not supposed to expire in normal
cases. So I thought a timeout expiration means not a normal case so need
to inform it in terms of dependency so as to prevent further expiraton.
That's why I have been trying to track even timeout'ed APIs.
Do you think DEPT shouldn't track timeout APIs? If I was wrong, I
shouldn't track the timeout APIs any more.
> 2. complete_all() from __fw_load_abort() isn't the only source of wakeup.
> The fw loader can be, and mainly should be, woken up by firmware loading
> actually completing instead of being aborted.
This is the point I'd like to ask. In normal cases, fw_load_done() might
happen, of course, if the loading gets completed. However, I was
wondering if the kernel ensures either fw_load_done() or fw_load_abort()
to be called by *another* context while kernel_halt().
> Thanks.
Thank you very much!
Byungchul
>
> --
> tejun
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists