From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
git-commits-head@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Exiting with locks still held (was Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug)
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:18:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1246616299.24965.13.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907021031260.4830@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 10:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > Initially, the scan_mutex was acquired in kmemleak_open() and released
> > in kmemleak_release() (corresponding to /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
> > operations). This was causing some lockdep reports when the file was
> > closed from a different task than the one opening it. This patch moves
> > the scan_mutex acquiring in kmemleak_write() or kmemleak_seq_show().
>
> This is better, but not really how you are supposed to do it.
>
> The whole seq-file thing is very much _designed_ for taking a lock at the
> beginning of the operation, and releasing it at the end. It's a very
> common pattern.
Thanks for this. Here's the updated patch (the difference from misc.c is
that it uses mutex_lock_interruptible):
kmemleak: Do not acquire scan_mutex in kmemleak_open()
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Initially, the scan_mutex was acquired in kmemleak_open() and released
in kmemleak_release() (corresponding to /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak
operations). This was causing some lockdep reports when the file was
closed from a different task than the one opening it. This patch moves
the scan_mutex acquiring in kmemleak_write() or kmemleak_seq_start()
with releasing in kmemleak_seq_stop().
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
---
mm/kmemleak.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
index 23bf5f0..c6e0aae 100644
--- a/mm/kmemleak.c
+++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
@@ -1103,6 +1103,11 @@ static void *kmemleak_seq_start(struct seq_file *seq, loff_t *pos)
{
struct kmemleak_object *object;
loff_t n = *pos;
+ int err;
+
+ err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&scan_mutex);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return ERR_PTR(err);
rcu_read_lock();
list_for_each_entry_rcu(object, &object_list, object_list) {
@@ -1146,8 +1151,15 @@ static void *kmemleak_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
*/
static void kmemleak_seq_stop(struct seq_file *seq, void *v)
{
- if (v)
- put_object(v);
+ if (!IS_ERR(v)) {
+ /*
+ * kmemleak_seq_start may return ERR_PTR if the scan_mutex
+ * waiting was interrupted, so only release it if !IS_ERR.
+ */
+ mutex_unlock(&scan_mutex);
+ if (v)
+ put_object(v);
+ }
}
/*
@@ -1174,36 +1186,15 @@ static const struct seq_operations kmemleak_seq_ops = {
static int kmemleak_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
- int ret = 0;
-
if (!atomic_read(&kmemleak_enabled))
return -EBUSY;
- ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&scan_mutex);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto out;
- if (file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) {
- ret = seq_open(file, &kmemleak_seq_ops);
- if (ret < 0)
- goto scan_unlock;
- }
- return ret;
-
-scan_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&scan_mutex);
-out:
- return ret;
+ return seq_open(file, &kmemleak_seq_ops);
}
static int kmemleak_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
- int ret = 0;
-
- if (file->f_mode & FMODE_READ)
- seq_release(inode, file);
- mutex_unlock(&scan_mutex);
-
- return ret;
+ return seq_release(inode, file);
}
/*
@@ -1223,15 +1214,17 @@ static ssize_t kmemleak_write(struct file *file, const char __user *user_buf,
{
char buf[64];
int buf_size;
-
- if (!atomic_read(&kmemleak_enabled))
- return -EBUSY;
+ int ret;
buf_size = min(size, (sizeof(buf) - 1));
if (strncpy_from_user(buf, user_buf, buf_size) < 0)
return -EFAULT;
buf[buf_size] = 0;
+ ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&scan_mutex);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
if (strncmp(buf, "off", 3) == 0)
kmemleak_disable();
else if (strncmp(buf, "stack=on", 8) == 0)
@@ -1244,11 +1237,10 @@ static ssize_t kmemleak_write(struct file *file, const char __user *user_buf,
stop_scan_thread();
else if (strncmp(buf, "scan=", 5) == 0) {
unsigned long secs;
- int err;
- err = strict_strtoul(buf + 5, 0, &secs);
- if (err < 0)
- return err;
+ ret = strict_strtoul(buf + 5, 0, &secs);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto out;
stop_scan_thread();
if (secs) {
jiffies_scan_wait = msecs_to_jiffies(secs * 1000);
@@ -1257,7 +1249,12 @@ static ssize_t kmemleak_write(struct file *file, const char __user *user_buf,
} else if (strncmp(buf, "scan", 4) == 0)
kmemleak_scan();
else
- return -EINVAL;
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(&scan_mutex);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
/* ignore the rest of the buffer, only one command at a time */
*ppos += size;
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-03 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200907010300.n6130rRf026194@hera.kernel.org>
2009-07-01 7:53 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Ingo Molnar
2009-07-01 8:10 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-07-01 9:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-01 9:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-01 9:46 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-01 11:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-02 12:48 ` Exiting with locks still held (was Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug) Catalin Marinas
2009-07-02 12:54 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-07-02 13:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-02 14:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-02 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-07-03 10:18 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2009-07-03 7:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-07-02 9:48 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Catalin Marinas
2009-07-03 7:00 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Mark nice +10 Ingo Molnar
2009-07-03 8:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-07-08 13:33 ` [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug Catalin Marinas
2009-08-23 2:48 ` Ming Lei
2009-08-23 14:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2009-08-24 0:10 ` Ming Lei
2009-08-24 10:02 ` ACPI scheduling while atomic (was: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug) Catalin Marinas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1246616299.24965.13.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=git-commits-head@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome