[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5107A5ED.7020009@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:35:25 +0100
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
Bernie Thompson <bernie@...gable.com>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect
Am 29.01.2013 01:56, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 29.01.2013 01:22, schrieb Andrew Morton:
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:49:27 +0100
>> Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
>>
>>> When a device was disconnected the driver may hang at waiting for urbs it never
>>> will get. Fix this by using a timeout while waiting for the used semaphore.
>>>
>>> There is still a memory leak if a timeout happens, but at least the driver
>>> now continues his disconnect routine.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> --- a/drivers/video/udlfb.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/video/udlfb.c
>>> @@ -1832,8 +1832,9 @@ static void dlfb_free_urb_list(struct dlfb_data *dev)
>>> /* keep waiting and freeing, until we've got 'em all */
>>> while (count--) {
>>>
>>> - /* Getting interrupted means a leak, but ok at disconnect */
>>> - ret = down_interruptible(&dev->urbs.limit_sem);
>>> + /* Timeout likely occurs at disconnect (resulting in a leak) */
>>> + ret = down_timeout_killable(&dev->urbs.limit_sem,
>>> + FREE_URB_TIMEOUT);
>>> if (ret)
>>> break;
>>
>> This is rather a hack. Do you have an understanding of the underlying
>> bug? Why is the driver waiting for things which will never happen?
To add a bit more explanation:
I've experienced that bug after moving the fb-damage-handling into a
workqueue (to make the driver usable as console). This likely has
increased the possibility that an urb gets missed when the usb-stack
calls the (usb-)disconnect function of the driver. But I don't know as I
couldn't use the driver before (as fbcon) so I don't really have a
comparison.
What currently happens here is something like that:
fb -> damage -> workload which sends urb and waits for answer
device disconnect -> dlfb_usb_disconnect() -> stall (no answer to the
above urb)
I don't know why the disconnect waits for all urbs. The code looks like
it does that just to free the allocated memory. As I'm not very familiar
with the usb-stack, I would have to read up about the urb-handling to
find out how to free the memory otherwise.
As the previous comment in the code suggests that urbs already got
missed (on shutdown) before, I assume that even without my patch, which
moved the damage into a workqueue, the problem could occur which then
prevents a shutdown as there is no timeout. As I've experienced that
problem not only on disconnect, but on shutdown too (no shutdown was
possible), I have to assume, that the previous used down_interruptible()
didn't get a signal on shutdown (if the driver is used as fbcon),
therefor I consider the timeout as necessary.
Regards,
Alexander
--
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