lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] wait: fix false timeouts when using wait_event_timeout()
On Thu, 2 May 2013 11:36:56 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> > Many callers of the wait_event_timeout() and
> > wait_event_interruptible_timeout() expect that the return value will be
> > positive if the specified condition becomes true before the timeout
> > elapses. However, at the moment this isn't guaranteed. If the wake-up
> > handler is delayed enough, the time remaining until timeout will be
> > calculated as 0 - and passed back as a return value - even if the
> > condition became true before the timeout has passed.
> >
> > Fix this by returning at least 1 if the condition becomes true. This
> > semantic is in line with what wait_for_condition_timeout() does; see
> > commit bb10ed09 - "sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious
> > failure under heavy load".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
>
> We have 3 instances of this bug in drm/i915. One case even where we
> switch between the interruptible and not interruptible
> wait_event_timeout variants, foolishly presuming they have the same
> semantics. I very much like this.

Let's think about scheduling this fix.

Are any of the bugs which we expect this patch fixes serious enough to
warrant merging it into 3.10? And -stable?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-08 01:41    [W:0.099 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site