From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: hogsberg@users.sourceforge.net, jamesg@filanet.com
Cc: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: sbp2.c on SMP
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:37:21 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BEF27D1.7793AE8E@zip.com.au> (raw)
Guys,
drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c deadlocks immediately on SMP, because
io_request_lock is not held over its call to scsi_old_done().
I don't know why scsi_old_done() actually requires io_request_lock;
perhaps Jens could comment on whether I've taken the lock in the
appropriate place?
With the appended patch I can confirm that the driver happily runs
`dbench 40' for half an hour on dual x86. Even when you kick the
disk onto the floor (sorry, HJ).
The games which scsi_old_done() plays with spinlocks and interrupt
enabling are really foul. If someone calls it with interrupts disabled
(sbp2 does this) then scsi_old_done() will enable interrupts for you.
If, for example, you call scsi_old_done() under spin_lock_irqsave(),
the reenabling of interrupts will expose you to deadlocks. Perhaps
scsi_old_done() should just use spin_unlock()/spin_lock()?
I tried enabling SBP2_USE_REAL_SPINLOCKS in sbp2.c and that appears to
work just fine, although I haven't left that change in place here.
You don't actually _need_ SMP hardware to test SMP code, BTW. You
can just build an SMP kernel and run that on a uniprocessor box.
This will still catch a wide range of bugs - it certainly detects
the lockup which was occurring because of the scsi_old_done() thing.
Incidentally, it would be nice to be able to get this driver working
properly when linked into the kernel - it makes debugging much easier :)
--- linux-2.4.15-pre2/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c Wed Oct 17 14:19:20 2001
+++ linux-akpm/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c Sun Nov 11 17:22:47 2001
@@ -2767,7 +2767,9 @@ static void sbp2scsi_complete_command(st
/*
* Tell scsi stack that we're done with this command
*/
+ spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock);
done (SCpnt);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&io_request_lock);
return;
}
-
next reply other threads:[~2001-11-12 1:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-12 1:37 Andrew Morton [this message]
2001-11-12 4:54 ` sbp2.c on SMP H . J . Lu
2001-11-12 5:14 ` Andrew Morton
2001-11-12 5:28 ` H . J . Lu
2001-11-12 8:50 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-12 17:34 ` Jens Axboe
2001-11-14 3:17 ` H . J . Lu
2001-11-14 7:21 ` Andrew Morton
2001-11-16 3:32 ` H . J . Lu
2001-11-16 16:15 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2001-11-16 16:30 ` H . J . Lu
2001-11-16 21:25 ` H . J . Lu
2001-11-16 22:40 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2001-11-26 15:43 ` Oops 2.4.15-pre1aa1 Sven Heinicke
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-11-12 4:49 sbp2.c on SMP Douglas Gilbert
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=3BEF27D1.7793AE8E@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=hjl@lucon.org \
--cc=hogsberg@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jamesg@filanet.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.