[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+U0gVhRUv_dWkO2yntsLvG_L727c=0zrVRkN_ceiPUwoAGbBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 22:20:37 +0800
From: Dennis Chen <kernel.org.gnu@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] <down,down_interruptible...>, kernel <3.2.9>
Current down family functions use mismatch spin_lock pairs, this will
incur some interrupt state chaos, for example,
down_interruptible --
spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags); P1
__down_common--
spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock); P2
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock); P3
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags); P4
Suppose 2 kernel thread A and B in an UP system call
down_interruptible to get the semaphore, if the irq is _OFF_ before A
calls, in the section between P2 and P3, the irq will be turned _ON_,
then B begins to call down_interruptible, it will save a flag
indicating irq is _ON_. So after A finish the path of
down_interruptible, the irq is still _OFF_, but when B wakes up and
finish the path, the irq will be _ON_. Actually, irq should be in on
state before any down_interruptible calling, so
spin_lock_irqsave/irqrestore is not necessary. Given it will make
confusion for the reason of unmatched spin_lock pairs between
down_interruptible and __down_common, so it's reason for the patch.
Any comments?
--- semaphore.bak.c 2012-03-02 21:37:50.510302064 +0800
+++ semaphore.c 2012-03-02 21:46:32.330269122 +0800
@@ -54,12 +54,12 @@
{
unsigned long flags;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
if (likely(sem->count > 0))
sem->count--;
else
__down(sem);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(down);
@@ -77,12 +77,12 @@
unsigned long flags;
int result = 0;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
if (likely(sem->count > 0))
sem->count--;
else
result = __down_interruptible(sem);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
return result;
}
@@ -103,12 +103,12 @@
unsigned long flags;
int result = 0;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
if (likely(sem->count > 0))
sem->count--;
else
result = __down_killable(sem);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
return result;
}
@@ -157,12 +157,12 @@
unsigned long flags;
int result = 0;
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
if (likely(sem->count > 0))
sem->count--;
else
result = __down_timeout(sem, jiffies);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->lock, flags);
return result;
}
--
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