[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YlJ1q0zohdPvQBUd@kroah.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 08:14:03 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>,
"Kenta.Tada@...y.com" <Kenta.Tada@...y.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Ed Tsai <ed.tsai@...iatek.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/tracing: Report TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT tasks as
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:42:24AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> +CC stable
>
> On 01/20/22 16:25, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT currently isn't part of TASK_REPORT, thus a task blocking
> > on an rtlock will appear as having a task state == 0, IOW TASK_RUNNING.
> >
> > The actual state is saved in p->saved_state, but reading it after reading
> > p->__state has a few issues:
> > o that could still be TASK_RUNNING in the case of e.g. rt_spin_lock
> > o ttwu_state_match() might have changed that to TASK_RUNNING
> >
> > As pointed out by Eric, adding TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT to TASK_REPORT implies
> > exposing a new state to userspace tools which way not know what to do with
> > them. The only information that needs to be conveyed here is that a task is
> > waiting on an rt_mutex, which matches TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE - there's no
> > need for a new state.
> >
> > Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
>
> Any objection for this to be picked up by stable? We care about Patch 1 only in
> this series for stable, but it seems sensible to pick this one too, no strong
> feeling if it is omitted though.
>
> AFAICT it seems the problem dates back since commit:
>
> 1593baab910d ("sched/debug: Implement consistent task-state printing")
>
> or even before. I think v4.14+ is good enough.
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists