[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1536670138.2710.20.camel@arista.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:48:58 +0100
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Nathan March <nathan@...net>,
Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
"Rong, Chen" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/6] tty/ldsem: Update waiter->task before waking up
reader
On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 13:40 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 02:48:17AM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > There is a couple of reports about lockup in ldsem_down_read()
> > without
> > anyone holding write end of ldisc semaphore:
> > lkml.kernel.org/r/<20171121132855.ajdv4k6swzhvktl6@...-t540p.sh.int
> > el.com>
> > lkml.kernel.org/r/<20180907045041.GF1110@...o2-debian>
> >
> > They all looked like a missed wake up.
> > I wasn't lucky enough to reproduce it, but it seems like reader on
> > another CPU can miss waiter->task update and schedule again,
> > resulting
> > in indefinite (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) sleep.
> >
> > Make sure waked up reader will see waiter->task == NULL.
> > --- a/drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c
> > @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ static void __ldsem_wake_readers(struct
> > ld_semaphore *sem)
> > tsk = waiter->task;
> > smp_mb();
> > waiter->task = NULL;
> > + /* Make sure down_read_failed() will see !waiter-
> > >task update */
> > + smp_wmb();
> > wake_up_process(tsk);
>
> This is 'wrong', wake_up_process() should imply sufficient for this
> to
> already be true.
Yeah, thanks.
It was stupid of me not to check that..
Saw the smoke that would describe the reports and made too long-going
conjectures. Need more covfefe and staring into that code.
>
> > put_task_struct(tsk);
> > }
--
Thanks,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists