From: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
To: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
huangtao@rock-chips.com, tony.xie@rock-chips.com,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process()
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:54:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161011185427.GA18048@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1476133442-17757-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org>
Hi Doug,
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:04:02PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Users of usleep_range() expect that it will _never_ return in less time
> than the minimum passed parameter. However, nothing in any of the code
> ensures this.
Like you and Andreas, I also don't understand Thomas's objection to your
above claim on what users of this function expect. I believe you have
clearly laid out why the current behavior needs to be changed somehow;
IMO the only remaining question is "how." Your follow up covers all this
plenty well for me.
Either we need a fix along the lines of what you've proposed, or else we
need to completely rethink almost all uses of usleep_range().
...
> Reported-by: Tao Huang <huangtao@rock-chips.com>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Fixed stupid bug that snuck in before posting
> - Use ktime_before
> - Remove delta from the loop
>
> NOTE: Tested against 4.4 tree w/ backports. I'm trying to get myself
> up and running with mainline again to test there now but it might be a
> little while. Hopefully this time I don't shoot myself in the foot.
>
> kernel/time/timer.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I've reviewed the logic here to the best of my ability, and it looks
good to me now. I'll admit that I'm not really a timekeeping or
scheduler expert, but FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 32bf6f75a8fe..219439efd56a 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1898,12 +1898,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(msleep_interruptible);
>
> static void __sched do_usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
> {
> + ktime_t now, end;
> ktime_t kmin;
> u64 delta;
> + int ret;
>
> - kmin = ktime_set(0, min * NSEC_PER_USEC);
> + now = ktime_get();
> + end = ktime_add_us(now, min);
> delta = (u64)(max - min) * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> - schedule_hrtimeout_range(&kmin, delta, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> + do {
> + kmin = ktime_sub(end, now);
> + ret = schedule_hrtimeout_range(&kmin, delta, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> +
> + /*
> + * If schedule_hrtimeout_range() returns 0 then we actually
> + * hit the timeout. If not then we need to re-calculate the
> + * new timeout ourselves.
> + */
> + if (ret == 0)
> + break;
> +
> + now = ktime_get();
> + } while (ktime_before(now, end));
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.8.0.rc3.226.g39d4020
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-11 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-10 21:04 [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Douglas Anderson
2016-10-10 22:39 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-11 7:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-11 16:33 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-12 8:56 ` Mark Brown
2016-10-11 18:25 ` Andreas Mohr
2016-10-12 13:11 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-10-12 17:39 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-11 20:34 ` Heiko Stuebner
2016-10-11 18:54 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2016-10-11 19:30 ` Andreas Mohr
2016-10-11 20:02 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-11 20:40 ` Andreas Mohr
2016-10-12 16:03 ` [v2] " Guenter Roeck
2016-10-12 16:27 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-12 16:53 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-10-18 13:44 ` [PATCH v2] " Daniel Kurtz
2016-10-18 20:29 ` Doug Anderson
2016-10-20 8:57 ` Daniel Kurtz
2016-10-20 9:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20161011185427.GA18048@localhost \
--to=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=andi@lisas.de \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=huangtao@rock-chips.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.xie@rock-chips.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