[PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Chuansheng Liu]

There is below race between irq handler and irq thread:
irq handler                             irq thread

irq_wake_thread()                       irq_thread()
  set bit RUNTHREAD
  ...                                    clear bit RUNTHREAD
                                         thread_fn()
                                         [A]test_and_decrease
                                               thread_active
  [B]increase thread_active

If action A is before action B, after that the thread_active
will be always > 0, and for synchronize_irq() calling, which
will be waiting there forever.

Here put the increasing thread-active before setting bit
RUNTHREAD, which can resolve such race.

Signed-off-by: xiaoming wang <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
---
 kernel/irq/handle.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/irq/handle.c b/kernel/irq/handle.c
index 131ca17..5f9fbb7 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/handle.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/handle.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ static void irq_wake_thread(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
 	 * Wake up the handler thread for this action. If the
 	 * RUNTHREAD bit is already set, nothing to do.
 	 */
-	if (test_and_set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags))
+	if (test_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags))
 		return;
 
 	/*
@@ -126,6 +126,25 @@ static void irq_wake_thread(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
 	 */
 	atomic_inc(&desc->threads_active);
 
+	/*
+	 * set the RUNTHREAD bit after increasing the threads_active,
+	 * it can avoid the below race:
+	 * irq handler                  irq thread in case it is in
+	 *                                            running state
+	 *
+	 *  set RUNTHREAD bit
+	 *                              clear the RUNTHREAD bit
+	 *...                           thread_fn()
+	 *
+	 *                              due to threads_active==0,
+	 *                              no waking up wait_for_threads
+	 *
+	 * threads_active ++
+	 * After that, the threads_active will be always > 0, which
+	 * will block the synchronize_irq().
+	 */
+	set_bit(IRQTF_RUNTHREAD, &action->thread_flags);
+
 	wake_up_process(action->thread);
 }
 
-- 
1.9.rc0

[PATCH 2/2] genirq: Fix one typo chasnge

[Chuansheng Liu]

Change the comment "chasnge" to "change".

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
---
 kernel/irq/manage.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 481a13c..4802295 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -727,7 +727,7 @@ out_unlock:
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 /*
- * Check whether we need to chasnge the affinity of the interrupt thread.
+ * Check whether we need to change the affinity of the interrupt thread.
  */
 static void
 irq_thread_check_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
-- 
1.9.rc0

[tip:irq/core] genirq: Update the a comment typo

[tip-bot for Chuansheng Liu]

Commit-ID:  b04c644e670f79417f1728e6be310cfd8e6a921b
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/b04c644e670f79417f1728e6be310cfd8e6a921b
Author:     Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
AuthorDate: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:13:57 +0800
Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CommitDate: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:26:34 +0100

genirq: Update the a comment typo

Change the comment "chasnge" to "change".

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1392020037-5484-2-git-send-email-chuansheng.liu@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/irq/manage.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 54eb5c9..ada0c54 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ out_unlock:
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 /*
- * Check whether we need to chasnge the affinity of the interrupt thread.
+ * Check whether we need to change the affinity of the interrupt thread.
  */
 static void
 irq_thread_check_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)

Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> There is below race between irq handler and irq thread:
> irq handler                             irq thread
> 
> irq_wake_thread()                       irq_thread()
>   set bit RUNTHREAD
>   ...                                    clear bit RUNTHREAD
>                                          thread_fn()
>                                          [A]test_and_decrease
>                                                thread_active
>   [B]increase thread_active
> 
> If action A is before action B, after that the thread_active
> will be always > 0, and for synchronize_irq() calling, which
> will be waiting there forever.

No. thread_active is 0, simply because after the atomic_dec_and_test()
it is -1 and the atomic_inc on the other side will bring it back to 0.

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Liu, Chuansheng]

Hello Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:58 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> 
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > There is below race between irq handler and irq thread:
> > irq handler                             irq thread
> >
> > irq_wake_thread()                       irq_thread()
> >   set bit RUNTHREAD
> >   ...                                    clear bit RUNTHREAD
> >                                          thread_fn()
> >                                          [A]test_and_decrease
> >                                                thread_active
> >   [B]increase thread_active
> >
> > If action A is before action B, after that the thread_active
> > will be always > 0, and for synchronize_irq() calling, which
> > will be waiting there forever.
> 
> No. thread_active is 0, simply because after the atomic_dec_and_test()
> it is -1 and the atomic_inc on the other side will bring it back to 0.
> 
Yes, you are right. The thread_active is back to 0 at last.

The case we meet is:
1/ T1: blocking at disable_irq() -- > sync_irq() -- > wait_event()
[  142.678681]  [<c1a5b353>] schedule+0x23/0x60
[  142.683466]  [<c12b24c5>] synchronize_irq+0x75/0xb0
[  142.688931]  [<c125fad0>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30
[  142.694201]  [<c12b33ab>] disable_irq+0x1b/0x20
[  142.699278]  [<c17a79bc>] smb347_shutdown+0x2c/0x50
[  142.704744]  [<c1789f7d>] i2c_device_shutdown+0x2d/0x40
[  142.710597]  [<c1601734>] device_shutdown+0x14/0x140
[  142.716161]  [<c12535f2>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x32/0x40
[  142.722307]  [<c1253613>] kernel_restart+0x13/0x60

2/ The corresponding irq thread is at sleep state:
[  587.552408] irq/388-SMB0349 S f1c47620  7276   119      2 0x00000000
[  587.552439]  f1d6bf20 00000046 f1c47a48 f1c47620 f1d6bec4 9e91731c 00000001 c1a5f3a5
[  587.552468]  c20469c0 00000001 c20469c0 f36559c0 f1c47620 f307bde0 c20469c0 f1d6bef0
[  587.552497]  00000296 00000000 00000296 f1d6bef0 c1a5bfa6 f1c47620 f1d6bf14 c126e329
[  587.552501] Call Trace:
[  587.552519]  [<c1a5f3a5>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x55/0xe0
[  587.552535]  [<c1a5bfa6>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x26/0x50
[  587.552548]  [<c126e329>] ? set_cpus_allowed_ptr+0x59/0xe0
[  587.552563]  [<c1a5b093>] schedule+0x23/0x60
[  587.552576]  [<c12b2ae1>] irq_thread+0xa1/0x130
[  587.552588]  [<c12b27f0>] ? irq_thread_dtor+0xa0/0xa0

3/ All the cpus are in the idle task;

So we guess the thread_active is not 0 at that time, but irq thread is doing nothing at that time.
Thought for a long time, but there is no idea, and it is just hit once.

Appreciated if you have some idea, thanks.

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:58 PM
> > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> > 
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > > There is below race between irq handler and irq thread:
> > > irq handler                             irq thread
> > >
> > > irq_wake_thread()                       irq_thread()
> > >   set bit RUNTHREAD
> > >   ...                                    clear bit RUNTHREAD
> > >                                          thread_fn()
> > >                                          [A]test_and_decrease
> > >                                                thread_active
> > >   [B]increase thread_active
> > >
> > > If action A is before action B, after that the thread_active
> > > will be always > 0, and for synchronize_irq() calling, which
> > > will be waiting there forever.
> > 
> > No. thread_active is 0, simply because after the atomic_dec_and_test()
> > it is -1 and the atomic_inc on the other side will bring it back to 0.
> > 
> Yes, you are right. The thread_active is back to 0 at last.
> 
> The case we meet is:
> 1/ T1: blocking at disable_irq() -- > sync_irq() -- > wait_event()
> [  142.678681]  [<c1a5b353>] schedule+0x23/0x60
> [  142.683466]  [<c12b24c5>] synchronize_irq+0x75/0xb0
> [  142.688931]  [<c125fad0>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30
> [  142.694201]  [<c12b33ab>] disable_irq+0x1b/0x20
> [  142.699278]  [<c17a79bc>] smb347_shutdown+0x2c/0x50
> [  142.704744]  [<c1789f7d>] i2c_device_shutdown+0x2d/0x40
> [  142.710597]  [<c1601734>] device_shutdown+0x14/0x140
> [  142.716161]  [<c12535f2>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x32/0x40
> [  142.722307]  [<c1253613>] kernel_restart+0x13/0x60
> 
> 2/ The corresponding irq thread is at sleep state:
> [  587.552408] irq/388-SMB0349 S f1c47620  7276   119      2 0x00000000
> [  587.552439]  f1d6bf20 00000046 f1c47a48 f1c47620 f1d6bec4 9e91731c 00000001 c1a5f3a5
> [  587.552468]  c20469c0 00000001 c20469c0 f36559c0 f1c47620 f307bde0 c20469c0 f1d6bef0
> [  587.552497]  00000296 00000000 00000296 f1d6bef0 c1a5bfa6 f1c47620 f1d6bf14 c126e329
> [  587.552501] Call Trace:
> [  587.552519]  [<c1a5f3a5>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x55/0xe0
> [  587.552535]  [<c1a5bfa6>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x26/0x50
> [  587.552548]  [<c126e329>] ? set_cpus_allowed_ptr+0x59/0xe0
> [  587.552563]  [<c1a5b093>] schedule+0x23/0x60
> [  587.552576]  [<c12b2ae1>] irq_thread+0xa1/0x130
> [  587.552588]  [<c12b27f0>] ? irq_thread_dtor+0xa0/0xa0
> 
> 3/ All the cpus are in the idle task;

Lets look at it again:

CPU 0                          CPU1

irq handler                    irq thread
  set IRQS_INPROGRESS
  ...
  irq_wake_thread()            irq_thread()
    set bit RUNTHREAD
    ...                          clear bit RUNTHREAD
                                 thread_fn()
  				 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) ( 0 -> -1)

    atomic_inc(threads_active) ( -1 -> 0)
  clr IRQS_INPROGRESS

Now synchronize_irq comes into play, that's what caused you to look
into this. 

synchronize_irq() can never observe the -1 state because it is
serialized against IRQS_INPROGESS. And when IRQS_INPROGRESS is
cleared, the threads_active state is back to 0.

I'm really not seing how this can happen. Any chance you can reproduce
this by executing the situation which led to this in a loop?

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Liu, Chuansheng]

Hello Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:53 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> 
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > Hello Thomas,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:58 PM
> > > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq()
> wait-forever
> > >
> > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > > > There is below race between irq handler and irq thread:
> > > > irq handler                             irq thread
> > > >
> > > > irq_wake_thread()                       irq_thread()
> > > >   set bit RUNTHREAD
> > > >   ...                                    clear bit RUNTHREAD
> > > >                                          thread_fn()
> > > >                                          [A]test_and_decrease
> > > >                                                thread_active
> > > >   [B]increase thread_active
> > > >
> > > > If action A is before action B, after that the thread_active
> > > > will be always > 0, and for synchronize_irq() calling, which
> > > > will be waiting there forever.
> > >
> > > No. thread_active is 0, simply because after the atomic_dec_and_test()
> > > it is -1 and the atomic_inc on the other side will bring it back to 0.
> > >
> > Yes, you are right. The thread_active is back to 0 at last.
> >
> > The case we meet is:
> > 1/ T1: blocking at disable_irq() -- > sync_irq() -- > wait_event()
> > [  142.678681]  [<c1a5b353>] schedule+0x23/0x60
> > [  142.683466]  [<c12b24c5>] synchronize_irq+0x75/0xb0
> > [  142.688931]  [<c125fad0>] ? wake_up_bit+0x30/0x30
> > [  142.694201]  [<c12b33ab>] disable_irq+0x1b/0x20
> > [  142.699278]  [<c17a79bc>] smb347_shutdown+0x2c/0x50
> > [  142.704744]  [<c1789f7d>] i2c_device_shutdown+0x2d/0x40
> > [  142.710597]  [<c1601734>] device_shutdown+0x14/0x140
> > [  142.716161]  [<c12535f2>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x32/0x40
> > [  142.722307]  [<c1253613>] kernel_restart+0x13/0x60
> >
> > 2/ The corresponding irq thread is at sleep state:
> > [  587.552408] irq/388-SMB0349 S f1c47620  7276   119      2
> 0x00000000
> > [  587.552439]  f1d6bf20 00000046 f1c47a48 f1c47620 f1d6bec4 9e91731c
> 00000001 c1a5f3a5
> > [  587.552468]  c20469c0 00000001 c20469c0 f36559c0 f1c47620 f307bde0
> c20469c0 f1d6bef0
> > [  587.552497]  00000296 00000000 00000296 f1d6bef0 c1a5bfa6
> f1c47620 f1d6bf14 c126e329
> > [  587.552501] Call Trace:
> > [  587.552519]  [<c1a5f3a5>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x55/0xe0
> > [  587.552535]  [<c1a5bfa6>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x26/0x50
> > [  587.552548]  [<c126e329>] ? set_cpus_allowed_ptr+0x59/0xe0
> > [  587.552563]  [<c1a5b093>] schedule+0x23/0x60
> > [  587.552576]  [<c12b2ae1>] irq_thread+0xa1/0x130
> > [  587.552588]  [<c12b27f0>] ? irq_thread_dtor+0xa0/0xa0
> >
> > 3/ All the cpus are in the idle task;
> 
> Lets look at it again:
> 
> CPU 0                          CPU1
> 
> irq handler                    irq thread
>   set IRQS_INPROGRESS
>   ...
>   irq_wake_thread()            irq_thread()
>     set bit RUNTHREAD
>     ...                          clear bit RUNTHREAD
>                                  thread_fn()
>   				 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) ( 0 -> -1)
> 
>     atomic_inc(threads_active) ( -1 -> 0)
>   clr IRQS_INPROGRESS
> 
> Now synchronize_irq comes into play, that's what caused you to look
> into this.
> 
> synchronize_irq() can never observe the -1 state because it is
> serialized against IRQS_INPROGESS. And when IRQS_INPROGRESS is
> cleared, the threads_active state is back to 0.
> 
> I'm really not seing how this can happen. Any chance you can reproduce
> this by executing the situation which led to this in a loop?
We can have a try to forcedly reproduce the case of threads_active -1/0.

But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there forever,
it is no waking up action from irq_thread().

CPU0                                         CPU1
disable_irq()                                      irq_thread()
  synchronize_irq()
    wait_event()
     adding the __wait into the queue                wake_threads_waitq
       test threads_active==0                      
												 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
                                                 waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
                                                   <== Here without smp_mb(), CPU1 maybe detect
                                                       the queue is still empty??
     schedule()

It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do the waking up action.
Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before waitqueue_active.

Thanks.

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there forever,
> it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> 
> CPU0                                  CPU1
> disable_irq()                         irq_thread()
>   synchronize_irq()
>     wait_event()
>      adding the __wait into the queue  wake_threads_waitq
>        test threads_active==0                      
> 					 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
>                                          waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
>                                   <== Here without smp_mb(), CPU1 maybe detect
>                                       the queue is still empty??
>      schedule()
> 
> It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do the waking up action.
> Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before waitqueue_active.

I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
there is definitely a potential issue.

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Liu, Chuansheng]

Hello Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:34 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> 
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there
> forever,
> > it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> >
> > CPU0                                  CPU1
> > disable_irq()                         irq_thread()
> >   synchronize_irq()
> >     wait_event()
> >      adding the __wait into the queue  wake_threads_waitq
> >        test threads_active==0
> > 					 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
> >
> waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
> >                                   <== Here without smp_mb(), CPU1
> maybe detect
> >                                       the queue is still empty??
> >      schedule()
> >
> > It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do the
> waking up action.
> > Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before
> waitqueue_active.
> 
> I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> there is definitely a potential issue.
> 
But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
CPU0                   CPU1
spin_lock               
                       atomic_dec_and_test 
insert into queue         
spin_unlock
                       checking waitqueue_active

Here after inserting into the queue, before waitqueue_active,
there is no mb.

So is it still the case? Thanks.

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:34 PM
> > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> > 
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there
> > forever,
> > > it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> > >
> > > CPU0                                  CPU1
> > > disable_irq()                         irq_thread()
> > >   synchronize_irq()
> > >     wait_event()
> > >      adding the __wait into the queue  wake_threads_waitq
> > >        test threads_active==0
> > > 					 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
> > >
> > waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
> > >                                   <== Here without smp_mb(), CPU1
> > maybe detect
> > >                                       the queue is still empty??
> > >      schedule()
> > >
> > > It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do the
> > waking up action.
> > > Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before
> > waitqueue_active.
> > 
> > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > 
> But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> CPU0                   CPU1
> spin_lock               
>                        atomic_dec_and_test 
> insert into queue         
> spin_unlock
>                        checking waitqueue_active

But CPU0 sees the 0, right?

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Liu, Chuansheng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:11 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> 
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > Hello Thomas,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 6:34 PM
> > > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq()
> wait-forever
> > >
> > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > But feels there is another case which the synchronize_irq waited there
> > > forever,
> > > > it is no waking up action from irq_thread().
> > > >
> > > > CPU0                                  CPU1
> > > > disable_irq()                         irq_thread()
> > > >   synchronize_irq()
> > > >     wait_event()
> > > >      adding the __wait into the queue  wake_threads_waitq
> > > >        test threads_active==0
> > > > 					 atomic_dec_and_test(threads_active) 1 -- > 0
> > > >
> > > waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads)
> > > >                                   <== Here without smp_mb(),
> CPU1
> > > maybe detect
> > > >                                       the queue is still empty??
> > > >      schedule()
> > > >
> > > > It will cause although the threads_active is 0, but irq_thread() didn't do
> the
> > > waking up action.
> > > > Is it reasonable? Then maybe we can add one smp_mb() before
> > > waitqueue_active.
> > >
> > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > >
> > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > CPU0                   CPU1
> > spin_lock
> >                        atomic_dec_and_test
> > insert into queue
> > spin_unlock
> >                        checking waitqueue_active
> 
> But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
Not be clear here:)
The atomic_read has no barrier.

Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > > >
> > > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > > CPU0                   CPU1
> > > spin_lock
> > >                        atomic_dec_and_test
> > > insert into queue
> > > spin_unlock
> > >                        checking waitqueue_active
> > 
> > But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
> Not be clear here:)
> The atomic_read has no barrier.
> 
> Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
> waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.

Indeed, you are completely right. Great detective work!

I'm inclined to remove the waitqueue_active() alltogether. It's
creating more headache than it's worth.

Thanks,

	tglx

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Liu, Chuansheng]

Hello Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:53 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> 
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > > > >
> > > > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > > > CPU0                   CPU1
> > > > spin_lock
> > > >                        atomic_dec_and_test
> > > > insert into queue
> > > > spin_unlock
> > > >                        checking waitqueue_active
> > >
> > > But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
> > Not be clear here:)
> > The atomic_read has no barrier.
> >
> > Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
> > waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.
> 
> Indeed, you are completely right. Great detective work!
Thanks your encouraging.

> 
> I'm inclined to remove the waitqueue_active() alltogether. It's
> creating more headache than it's worth.
If I am understanding well, removing the checking of waitqueue_active(),
and call wakeup() directly which will check list with spinlock protection.

If so, I can prepare one patch for it:)

RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de]
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:53 PM
> > To: Liu, Chuansheng
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wang, Xiaoming
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: Fix the possible synchronize_irq() wait-forever
> > 
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Liu, Chuansheng wrote:
> > > > > > I think you have a point there, but not on x86 wherre the atomic_dec
> > > > > > and the spinlock on the queueing side are full barriers. For non-x86
> > > > > > there is definitely a potential issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > But even on X86, spin_unlock has no full barrier, the following scenario:
> > > > > CPU0                   CPU1
> > > > > spin_lock
> > > > >                        atomic_dec_and_test
> > > > > insert into queue
> > > > > spin_unlock
> > > > >                        checking waitqueue_active
> > > >
> > > > But CPU0 sees the 0, right?
> > > Not be clear here:)
> > > The atomic_read has no barrier.
> > >
> > > Found commit 6cb2a21049b89 has one similar smp_mb() calling before
> > > waitqueue_active() on one X86 CPU.
> > 
> > Indeed, you are completely right. Great detective work!
> Thanks your encouraging.
> 
> > 
> > I'm inclined to remove the waitqueue_active() alltogether. It's
> > creating more headache than it's worth.
> If I am understanding well, removing the checking of waitqueue_active(),
> and call wakeup() directly which will check list with spinlock protection.

Correct.
 
> If so, I can prepare one patch for it:)

Appreciated.

	tglx