From: "Fabio Comolli" <fabio.comolli@gmail.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Florin Iucha" <florin@iucha.net>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.20-rc2
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:44:07 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b637ec0b0612260944g15402295nd6f41d3ca9ed99ac@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061226163713.GA9047@elte.hu>
Hi.
Can you confirm that the problem I mentioned in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/24/32 is the same?
Best regards,
Fabio
On 12/26/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > > I've had at least one more occurrence of it:
> > >
> > > [ 78.804940] BUG: scheduling while atomic: kbd/0x20000000/3444
> > > [ 78.804944]
> > > [ 78.804945] Call Trace:
> >
> > ok, i can think of a simpler scenario:
> > add_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE) /twice/, nested into each other.
>
> doh - the BKL! That does a down() in a PREEMPT_ACTIVE section, which can
> trigger cond_resched(). The fix is to check for PREEMPT_ACTIVE in
> cond_resched(). (and only in cond_resched())
>
> Updated fix (against -rc2) attached.
>
> Ingo
>
> ---------------------->
> Subject: [patch] sched: fix cond_resched_softirq() offset
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>
> remove the __resched_legal() check: it is conceptually broken.
> The biggest problem it had is that it can mask buggy cond_resched()
> calls. A cond_resched() call is only legal if we are not in an
> atomic context, with two narrow exceptions:
>
> - if the system is booting
> - a reacquire_kernel_lock() down() done while PREEMPT_ACTIVE is set
>
> But __resched_legal() hid this and just silently returned whenever
> these primitives were called from invalid contexts. (Same goes for
> cond_resched_locked() and cond_resched_softirq()).
>
> furthermore, the __legal_resched(0) call was buggy in that it caused
> unnecessarily long softirq latencies via cond_resched_softirq(). (which
> is only called from softirq-off sections, hence the code did nothing.)
>
> the fix is to resurrect the efficiency of the might_sleep checks and to
> only allow the narrow exceptions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 18 ++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -4617,17 +4617,6 @@ asmlinkage long sys_sched_yield(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static inline int __resched_legal(int expected_preempt_count)
> -{
> -#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> - if (unlikely(preempt_count() != expected_preempt_count))
> - return 0;
> -#endif
> - if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING))
> - return 0;
> - return 1;
> -}
> -
> static void __cond_resched(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP
> @@ -4647,7 +4636,8 @@ static void __cond_resched(void)
>
> int __sched cond_resched(void)
> {
> - if (need_resched() && __resched_legal(0)) {
> + if (need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE) &&
> + system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
> __cond_resched();
> return 1;
> }
> @@ -4673,7 +4663,7 @@ int cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> ret = 1;
> spin_lock(lock);
> }
> - if (need_resched() && __resched_legal(1)) {
> + if (need_resched() && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
> spin_release(&lock->dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_);
> _raw_spin_unlock(lock);
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> @@ -4689,7 +4679,7 @@ int __sched cond_resched_softirq(void)
> {
> BUG_ON(!in_softirq());
>
> - if (need_resched() && __resched_legal(0)) {
> + if (need_resched() && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
> raw_local_irq_disable();
> _local_bh_enable();
> raw_local_irq_enable();
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-26 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-25 22:40 Florin Iucha
2006-12-25 22:56 ` Florin Iucha
2006-12-25 23:06 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-12-26 1:30 ` Florin Iucha
2006-12-26 10:25 ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-26 12:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-12-26 14:20 ` Florin Iucha
2006-12-26 15:22 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <20061226234206.GD22307@iucha.net>
[not found] ` <20061226234253.GA7523@elte.hu>
2006-12-27 1:50 ` Florin Iucha
2006-12-26 15:36 ` Randy Dunlap
2006-12-26 16:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-12-26 16:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-12-26 17:44 ` Fabio Comolli [this message]
2007-01-03 12:33 ` Jiri Kosina
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-12-24 4:49 Linus Torvalds
2006-12-24 13:58 ` Alessandro Suardi
2006-12-24 14:49 ` Jeff Garzik
2006-12-24 17:13 ` Andreas Schwab
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=b637ec0b0612260944g15402295nd6f41d3ca9ed99ac@mail.gmail.com \
--to=fabio.comolli@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=florin@iucha.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®