[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca1428a5-9fa2-2de1-0d09-85d6c02cbf34@metafoo.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 17:27:53 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: fix sched WARNING "do not call blocking ops when
!TASK_RUNNING"
On 08/15/2016 05:54 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 09/08/16 01:19, Brian Norris wrote:
>> When using CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, the scheduler nicely points out
>> that we're calling sleeping primitives within the wait_event loop, which
>> means we might clobber the task state:
>>
>> [ 10.831289] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<ffffffc00026b610>]
>> [ 10.845531] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 10.850161] WARNING: at kernel/sched/core.c:7630
>> ...
>> [ 12.164333] ---[ end trace 45409966a9a76438 ]---
>> [ 12.168942] Call trace:
>> [ 12.171391] [<ffffffc00024ed44>] __might_sleep+0x64/0x90
>> [ 12.176699] [<ffffffc000954774>] mutex_lock_nested+0x50/0x3fc
>> [ 12.182440] [<ffffffc0007b9424>] iio_kfifo_buf_data_available+0x28/0x4c
>> [ 12.189043] [<ffffffc0007b76ac>] iio_buffer_ready+0x60/0xe0
>> [ 12.194608] [<ffffffc0007b7834>] iio_buffer_read_first_n_outer+0x108/0x1a8
>> [ 12.201474] [<ffffffc000370d48>] __vfs_read+0x58/0x114
>> [ 12.206606] [<ffffffc000371740>] vfs_read+0x94/0x118
>> [ 12.211564] [<ffffffc0003720f8>] SyS_read+0x64/0xb4
>> [ 12.216436] [<ffffffc000203cb4>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
>>
>> To avoid this, we should (a la https://lwn.net/Articles/628628/) use the
>> wait_woken() function, which avoids the nested sleeping while still
>> handling races between waiting / wake-events.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> Looks good to me, but given Lars' involvement in the discussion I'd
> like his review before applying this.
Looks good. Thanks Brian for fixing this.
Reviewed-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists