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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox