From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:59368 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726563AbeIKQkJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:40:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 13:40:43 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Dmitry Safonov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>, Daniel Axtens , Dmitry Vyukov , Michael Neuling , Mikulas Patocka , Nathan March , Pasi =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E4rkk=E4inen?= , Peter Hurley , "Rong, Chen" , Sergey Senozhatsky , Tan Xiaojun , Tetsuo Handa , stable@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/6] tty/ldsem: Update waiter->task before waking up reader Message-ID: <20180911114043.GR24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180911014821.26286-1-dima@arista.com> <20180911014821.26286-3-dima@arista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180911014821.26286-3-dima@arista.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 02:48:17AM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote: > There is a couple of reports about lockup in ldsem_down_read() without > anyone holding write end of ldisc semaphore: > lkml.kernel.org/r/<20171121132855.ajdv4k6swzhvktl6@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> > lkml.kernel.org/r/<20180907045041.GF1110@shao2-debian> > > They all looked like a missed wake up. > I wasn't lucky enough to reproduce it, but it seems like reader on > another CPU can miss waiter->task update and schedule again, resulting > in indefinite (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) sleep. > > Make sure waked up reader will see waiter->task == NULL. > --- a/drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_ldsem.c > @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ static void __ldsem_wake_readers(struct ld_semaphore *sem) > tsk = waiter->task; > smp_mb(); > waiter->task = NULL; > + /* Make sure down_read_failed() will see !waiter->task update */ > + smp_wmb(); > wake_up_process(tsk); This is 'wrong', wake_up_process() should imply sufficient for this to already be true. > put_task_struct(tsk); > }