[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160906150547.GG2794@worktop>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:05:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: Memory barrier needed with wake_up_process()?
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:46:55AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Not knowing where INFO() goes, you should use trace_printk() not
printk(), as the former is strictly per cpu, while the latter is
globally serialized and can hide all these problems.
> Index: usb-4.x/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_mass_storage.c
> ===================================================================
> --- usb-4.x.orig/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_mass_storage.c
> +++ usb-4.x/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_mass_storage.c
> @@ -485,6 +485,8 @@ static void bulk_out_complete(struct usb
> spin_lock(&common->lock);
> bh->outreq_busy = 0;
> bh->state = BUF_STATE_FULL;
> + if (bh->bulk_out_intended_length == US_BULK_CB_WRAP_LEN)
> + INFO(common, "compl: bh %p state %d\n", bh, bh->state);
> wakeup_thread(common);
> spin_unlock(&common->lock);
> }
> @@ -2207,6 +2209,7 @@ static int get_next_command(struct fsg_c
> rc = sleep_thread(common, true);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
> + INFO(common, "next: bh %p state %d\n", bh, bh->state);
> }
> smp_rmb();
> rc = fsg_is_set(common) ? received_cbw(common->fsg, bh) : -EIO;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists