lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156 __might_sleep()
On 10/02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:52:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > If yes, then wakeups from signals don't work either, right?
> >
> > Its a kthread, there should not be any signals.
>
> That said, in the tty patch we do appear to have this problem.
>
> Oleg, do we want something like the below on top to make that work
> again?
>
> ---
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -326,8 +326,10 @@ long wait_woken(wait_queue_t *wait, unsi
> * woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
> * also observe all state before the wakeup.
> */
> - if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN))
> - timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN)) {
> + if (___wait_is_interruptible(mode) && !signal_pending_state(mode, current))
> + timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> + }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);

I am a bit confused... but for what?

schedule() won't sleep if signal_pending_state(mode) anyway, so we
do not need this correctness-wise. And the caller needs to check
signal_pending() anyway.

We can probably add

if (signal_pending_state(mode, current))
return -EINTR;

at the start of wait_woken(), even before set_current_state(mode).
Then the caller can check "ret < 0" and avoid signal_pending().
Not sure this makes sense.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-02 21:41    [W:0.098 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site