Re: [PATCH -next v2 10/26] tty: Don't take tty_mutex for tty count changes

[Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>]

On 11/05/2014 09:33 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:12:53PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> Holding tty_mutex is no longer required to serialize changes to
>> the tty_count or to prevent concurrent opens of closing ttys;
>> tty_lock() is sufficient.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 6 ------
>>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> index ea8c6cae8d12..e59de81c39a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> @@ -1804,10 +1804,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>  	 * each iteration we avoid any problems.
>>  	 */
>>  	while (1) {
>> -		/* Guard against races with tty->count changes elsewhere and
>> -		   opens on /dev/tty */
>> -
>> -		mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
>>  		tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>>  		tty_closing = tty->count <= 1;
>>  		o_tty_closing = o_tty &&
>> @@ -1840,7 +1836,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>>  		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %s: read/write wait queue active!\n",
>>  				__func__, tty_name(tty, buf));
>>  		tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>> -		mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>>  		schedule();
>>  	}
>>  
> 
> The code in my tree in this section of tty_release() looks a bit
> different, so I had to hand-apply this patch.

Although there's nothing wrong with your version, I'm wondering why this
didn't apply cleanly.

While I go look at your tree, can you check that these patches are
sitting on top of the earlier two patches you applied to your tty-linus
branch; specifically 'tty: Fix high cpu load if tty is unreleasable' and
'tty: Prevent "read/write wait queue active!" log flooding'?

Regards,
Peter

> I've included the version
> I used below, please verify I didn't mess it up.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> index ea8c6cae8d12..e59de81c39a9 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> @@ -1804,10 +1804,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  	 * each iteration we avoid any problems.
>  	 */
>  	while (1) {
> -		/* Guard against races with tty->count changes elsewhere and
> -		   opens on /dev/tty */
> -
> -		mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
>  		tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>  		tty_closing = tty->count <= 1;
>  		o_tty_closing = o_tty &&
> @@ -1840,7 +1836,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  		printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %s: read/write wait queue active!\n",
>  				__func__, tty_name(tty, buf));
>  		tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
> -		mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>  		schedule();
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1891,7 +1886,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  		read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>  	}
>  
> -	mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>  	tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>  	/* At this point, the tty->count == 0 should ensure a dead tty
>  	   cannot be re-opened by a racing opener */
>