inappropriate use of in_atomic()

inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Andrew Morton]

in_atomic() is not a reliable indication of whether it is currently safe
to call schedule().

This is because the lockdepth beancounting which in_atomic() uses is only
accumulated if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.  in_atomic() will return false inside
spinlocks if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.

Consequently the use of in_atomic() in the below files is probably
deadlocky if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n:

	arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c
	drivers/net/irda/sir_kthread.c
	drivers/net/wireless/airo.c
	drivers/video/amba-clcd.c
	drivers/acpi/osl.c
	drivers/ieee1394/ieee1394_transactions.c
	drivers/infiniband/core/mad.c

Note that the same beancounting is used for the "scheduling while atomic"
warning, so if the code calls schedule with locks held, we won't get a
warning.  Both are tied to CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.

The kernel provides no reliable runtime way of detecting whether or not it
is safe to call schedule().

Can we please find ways to change the above code to not use in_atomic()? 
Then we can whack #ifndef MODULE around its definition to reduce
reoccurrences.  Will probably rename it to something more scary as well.

Thanks.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1932 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:40:06 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> in_atomic() is not a reliable indication of whether it is currently safe
> to call schedule().
>
> 	arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c

in_atomic() in viopath.c was just used to determine if we had initialised
enough to be able to wait in a semaphore (i.e. schedule).  Thus it can be
replaced now with checking system_state for SYSTEM_RUNNING.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>

Test booted on iSeries (which is the only place it is used).
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

diff -ruNp linus/arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c linus-in_atomic/arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c
--- linus/arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c	2005-01-22 06:09:01.000000000 +1100
+++ linus-in_atomic/arch/ppc64/kernel/viopath.c	2005-03-11 17:19:45.000000000 +1100
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static void handleMonitorEvent(struct Hv
 /*
  * We use this structure to handle asynchronous responses.  The caller
  * blocks on the semaphore and the handler posts the semaphore.  However,
- * if in_atomic() is true in the caller, then wait_atomic is used ...
+ * if system_state is not SYSTEM_RUNNING, then wait_atomic is used ...
  */
 struct doneAllocParms_t {
 	struct semaphore *sem;
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ static int allocateEvents(HvLpIndex remo
 	DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED(Semaphore);
 	atomic_t wait_atomic;
 
-	if (in_atomic()) {
+	if (system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
 		parms.used_wait_atomic = 1;
 		atomic_set(&wait_atomic, 1);
 		parms.wait_atomic = &wait_atomic;
@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ static int allocateEvents(HvLpIndex remo
 	}
 	mf_allocate_lp_events(remoteLp, HvLpEvent_Type_VirtualIo, 250,	/* It would be nice to put a real number here! */
 			    numEvents, &viopath_donealloc, &parms);
-	if (in_atomic()) {
+	if (system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING) {
 		while (atomic_read(&wait_atomic))
 			mb();
 	} else

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc64-dev mailing list
Linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc64-dev

Re: inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Jan Kasprzak]

Andrew Morton wrote:
: 
: in_atomic() is not a reliable indication of whether it is currently safe
: to call schedule().
: 
: This is because the lockdepth beancounting which in_atomic() uses is only
: accumulated if CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.  in_atomic() will return false inside
: spinlocks if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
: 
: Consequently the use of in_atomic() in the below files is probably
: deadlocky if CONFIG_PREEMPT=n:
[...]
: 	drivers/acpi/osl.c
[...]

This may be the cause of 

http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150

- I have recently verified that the problem described in bug #4150 disappears
when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y is used.

-Yenya


-- 
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak  <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839      Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/   Czech Linux Homepage: http://www.linux.cz/ |
> Whatever the Java applications and desktop dances may lead to, Unix will <
> still be pushing the packets around for a quite a while.      --Rob Pike <


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: [ACPI] inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Andrew Morton]

Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz> wrote:
>
> This may be the cause of 
> 
>  http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150

Looks that way, yes.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Re: inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jan Kasprzak <kas-0hYGf3jDe+XrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > This may be the cause of 
> > 
> >  http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
> 
> Looks that way, yes.

Note that it would be interesting to fix that (I mean the reliability of
is_atomic() or an alternative). I agree it's quite bad to rely on that
in practice, but there are a few corner cases where it's useful (like
oops handling in fbdev's etc...)

Ben.




-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] Re: [ACPI] inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Andrew Morton]

(where'd my cc go?)

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz> wrote:
> > >
> > > This may be the cause of 
> > > 
> > >  http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
> > 
> > Looks that way, yes.
> 
> Note that it would be interesting to fix that (I mean the reliability of
> is_atomic() or an alternative). I agree it's quite bad to rely on that
> in practice, but there are a few corner cases where it's useful (like
> oops handling in fbdev's etc...)
> 

That would require that we increment current->something on every
spin/read/write_lock and decrement it in unlock, even with !CONFIG_PREEMPT.

iirc, Anton added an option to do that to the ppc64 build, decoupled from
CONFIG_PREEMPT (which ppc64 doesn't support).

But it's an appreciable amount of overhead.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: Re: [ACPI] inappropriate use of in_atomic()

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 16:13 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (where'd my cc go?)
> 
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 01:46 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Jan Kasprzak <kas@fi.muni.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This may be the cause of 
> > > > 
> > > >  http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4150
> > > 
> > > Looks that way, yes.
> > 
> > Note that it would be interesting to fix that (I mean the reliability of
> > is_atomic() or an alternative). I agree it's quite bad to rely on that
> > in practice, but there are a few corner cases where it's useful (like
> > oops handling in fbdev's etc...)
> > 
> 
> That would require that we increment current->something on every
> spin/read/write_lock and decrement it in unlock, even with !CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> 
> iirc, Anton added an option to do that to the ppc64 build, decoupled from
> CONFIG_PREEMPT (which ppc64 doesn't support).

ppc64 _does_ support PREEMPT nowadays :)

> But it's an appreciable amount of overhead.
-- 
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click