Message-ID: <4F2963AA.3010306@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:09:14 +0400
From:	Dmitry Antipov <dmitry.antipov@...aro.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Module/kthread/printk question/problem

I'm writing a kernel module which creates a substantial amount of
kernel threads. After dropping some real stuff, the module is:

#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/kthread.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>

MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");

static int nrthreads = 128;
module_param(nrthreads, int, 0644);

static int loopcount = 1024;
module_param(loopcount, int, 0644);

static int usehrtime = 0;
module_param(usehrtime, int, 0644);

static int slack = 50000;
module_param(slack, int, 0644);

static int msecs = 1;
module_param(msecs, int, 0644);

static DECLARE_COMPLETION(done);
static struct task_struct **threads;
static atomic_t nrunning;

static int test(void *unused)
{
         int i;
         ktime_t expires = ktime_set(0, msecs * NSEC_PER_MSEC);

         for (i = 0; !kthread_should_stop() && i < loopcount; i++) {
                 if (usehrtime) {
                         set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
                         schedule_hrtimeout_range(&expires, slack, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
                 }
                 else
                         schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(msecs));
         }

         if (atomic_dec_and_test(&nrunning)) {
                 printk("last thread done\n");
                 complete(&done);
         }
         return 0;
}

static int __init testmod_init(void)
{
         int i;

         printk("test begin\n");

         atomic_set(&nrunning, nrthreads);

         threads = kmalloc(nrthreads * sizeof(struct task_struct *), GFP_KERNEL);
         if (!threads)
                 return -ENOMEM;

         for (i = 0; i < nrthreads; i++) {
                 threads[i] = kthread_run(test, NULL, "test/%d", i);
                 if (IS_ERR(threads[i])) {
                         int j, err = PTR_ERR(threads[i]);

                         for (j = 0; j < i; j++)
                                 kthread_stop(threads[j]);
                         kfree(threads);
                         return err;
                 }
         }
         return 0;
}

static void __exit testmod_exit(void)
{
         wait_for_completion(&done);
         kfree(threads);
}

module_init(testmod_init);
module_exit(testmod_exit);

Usually it works as expected, at least from 8 to 128 threads.
But when I'm trying to run it a loop like:

   while true; do insmod testmod.ko && rmmod testmod.ko; sleep 1; done

it's also possible to catch a very rare crash (ARM example):

Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 7f1200c4
pgd = 80004000
[7f1200c4] *pgd=bdc28811, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
Internal error: Oops: 80000007 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
Modules linked in: [last unloaded: testmod]
CPU: 1    Tainted: G           O  (3.3.0-rc2 #3)
PC is at 0x7f1200c4
LR is at __schedule+0x684/0x6e4
pc : [<7f1200c4>]    lr : [<802c053c>]    psr: 600f0113
sp : bf115f88  ip : 00000000  fp : 00000000
r10: 00000000  r9 : 00000000  r8 : 7f120394
r7 : 00000002  r6 : 00000400  r5 : 7f120204  r4 : bf114000
r3 : 00000000  r2 : bf115ec0  r1 : bf9220c0  r0 : 00000001
Flags: nZCv  IRQs on  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM  Segment kernel
Control: 10c5387d  Table: bfbcc04a  DAC: 00000015
Process test/126 (pid: 10918, stack limit = 0xbf1142f8)
Stack: (0xbf115f88 to 0xbf116000)
5f80:                   000f4240 00000000 bf213e4c 00000000 7f120000 00000013
5fa0: 00000000 80049228 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
5fc0: dead4ead ffffffff ffffffff 8048b2b8 00000000 00000000 8036a3f9 bf115fdc
5fe0: bf115fdc 271aee1c bf213e4c 8004919c 8000eabc 8000eabc bfefc811 bfefcc11
Code: bad PC value

Note the bad PC, and stack is just a nonsense. I suspect that the kernel calls
testmod_exit() and frees module memory _before_ all test/X threads are really
dead - i.e. the module memory is freed when at least one of the test/X threads
is somewhere in do_exit() or nearby. Is that possible? If yes, what's the better
way to ensure that all test/X threads are really gone at some point of
testmod_exit()?

An interesting thing is that I can't reproduce this fault with both printk()s
commented out. No ideas why.

Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists