Commit c685689f authored by Chuansheng Liu's avatar Chuansheng Liu Committed by Thomas Gleixner

genirq: Remove racy waitqueue_active check

We hit one rare case below:

T1 calling disable_irq(), but hanging at synchronize_irq()
always;
The corresponding irq thread is in sleeping state;
And all CPUs are in idle state;

After analysis, we found there is one possible scenerio which
causes T1 is waiting there forever:
CPU0                                       CPU1
 synchronize_irq()
  wait_event()
    spin_lock()
                                           atomic_dec_and_test(&threads_active)
      insert the __wait into queue
    spin_unlock()
                                           if(waitqueue_active)
    atomic_read(&threads_active)
                                             wake_up()

Here after inserted the __wait into queue on CPU0, and before
test if queue is empty on CPU1, there is no barrier, it maybe
cause it is not visible for CPU1 immediately, although CPU0 has
updated the queue list.
It is similar for CPU0 atomic_read() threads_active also.

So we'd need one smp_mb() before waitqueue_active.that, but removing
the waitqueue_active() check solves it as wel l and it makes
things simple and clear.
Signed-off-by: default avatarChuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
Cc: Xiaoming Wang <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1393212590-32543-1-git-send-email-chuansheng.liu@intel.com
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
parent 6dba6ecb
...@@ -802,8 +802,7 @@ static irqreturn_t irq_thread_fn(struct irq_desc *desc, ...@@ -802,8 +802,7 @@ static irqreturn_t irq_thread_fn(struct irq_desc *desc,
static void wake_threads_waitq(struct irq_desc *desc) static void wake_threads_waitq(struct irq_desc *desc)
{ {
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&desc->threads_active) && if (atomic_dec_and_test(&desc->threads_active))
waitqueue_active(&desc->wait_for_threads))
wake_up(&desc->wait_for_threads); wake_up(&desc->wait_for_threads);
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment