Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

can we update to 3.10?the 3.4 is too old #6

Open
wangyou opened this issue Sep 21, 2016 · 0 comments
Open

can we update to 3.10?the 3.4 is too old #6

wangyou opened this issue Sep 21, 2016 · 0 comments

Comments

@wangyou
Copy link

wangyou commented Sep 21, 2016

the 3.4 too old , many future can't support.....
this patch can running cm https://github.com/erorcun/android_kernel_oneplus_msm8974-3.10
can you porting to cos or all ROM ????
Please ,thank you so much !!!
franciscofranco pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 26, 2017
@huth @lizf-os
powerpc/rtas: Introduce rtas_get_sensor_fast() for IRQ handlers
1f4cd88 
commit 1c2cb594441d02815d304cccec9742ff5c707495 upstream.

The EPOW interrupt handler uses rtas_get_sensor(), which in turn
uses rtas_busy_delay() to wait for RTAS becoming ready in case it
is necessary. But rtas_busy_delay() is annotated with might_sleep()
and thus may not be used by interrupts handlers like the EPOW handler!
This leads to the following BUG when CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP is
enabled:

 BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c:496
 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 0, name: swapper/1
 CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc2-thuth #6
 Call Trace:
 [c00000007ffe7b90] [c000000000807670] dump_stack+0xa0/0xdc (unreliable)
 [c00000007ffe7bc0] [c0000000000e1f14] ___might_sleep+0x134/0x180
 [c00000007ffe7c20] [c00000000002aec0] rtas_busy_delay+0x30/0xd0
 [c00000007ffe7c50] [c00000000002bde4] rtas_get_sensor+0x74/0xe0
 [c00000007ffe7ce0] [c000000000083264] ras_epow_interrupt+0x44/0x450
 [c00000007ffe7d90] [c000000000120260] handle_irq_event_percpu+0xa0/0x300
 [c00000007ffe7e70] [c000000000120524] handle_irq_event+0x64/0xc0
 [c00000007ffe7eb0] [c000000000124dbc] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xec/0x260
 [c00000007ffe7ef0] [c00000000011f4f0] generic_handle_irq+0x50/0x80
 [c00000007ffe7f20] [c000000000010f3c] __do_irq+0x8c/0x200
 [c00000007ffe7f90] [c0000000000236cc] call_do_irq+0x14/0x24
 [c00000007e6f39e0] [c000000000011144] do_IRQ+0x94/0x110
 [c00000007e6f3a30] [c000000000002594] hardware_interrupt_common+0x114/0x180

Fix this issue by introducing a new rtas_get_sensor_fast() function
that does not use rtas_busy_delay() - and thus can only be used for
sensors that do not cause a BUSY condition - known as "fast" sensors.

The EPOW sensor is defined to be "fast" in sPAPR - mpe.

Fixes: 587f83e ("powerpc/pseries: Use rtas_get_sensor in RAS code")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Fontenot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Zefan Li <[email protected]>
franciscofranco pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 26, 2017
@lizf-os
tty: fix stall caused by missing memory barrier in drivers/tty/n_tty.c
3a0b4c1 
commit e81107d4c6bd098878af9796b24edc8d4a9524fd upstream.

My colleague ran into a program stall on a x86_64 server, where
n_tty_read() was waiting for data even if there was data in the buffer
in the pty.  kernel stack for the stuck process looks like below.
 #0 [ffff88303d107b58] __schedule at ffffffff815c4b20
 #1 [ffff88303d107bd0] schedule at ffffffff815c513e
 #2 [ffff88303d107bf0] schedule_timeout at ffffffff815c7818
 #3 [ffff88303d107ca0] wait_woken at ffffffff81096bd2
 #4 [ffff88303d107ce0] n_tty_read at ffffffff8136fa23
 #5 [ffff88303d107dd0] tty_read at ffffffff81368013
 #6 [ffff88303d107e20] __vfs_read at ffffffff811a3704
 #7 [ffff88303d107ec0] vfs_read at ffffffff811a3a57
 #8 [ffff88303d107f00] sys_read at ffffffff811a4306
 #9 [ffff88303d107f50] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath at ffffffff815c86d7

There seems to be two problems causing this issue.

First, in drivers/tty/n_tty.c, __receive_buf() stores the data and
updates ldata->commit_head using smp_store_release() and then checks
the wait queue using waitqueue_active().  However, since there is no
memory barrier, __receive_buf() could return without calling
wake_up_interactive_poll(), and at the same time, n_tty_read() could
start to wait in wait_woken() as in the following chart.

        __receive_buf()                         n_tty_read()
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
/* Memory operations issued after the
   RELEASE may be completed before the
   RELEASE operation has completed */
                                        add_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
                                        ...
                                        if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) {
smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head,
                  ldata->read_head);
                                        ...
                                        timeout = wait_woken(&wait,
                                          TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout);
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second problem is that n_tty_read() also lacks a memory barrier
call and could also cause __receive_buf() to return without calling
wake_up_interactive_poll(), and n_tty_read() to wait in wait_woken()
as in the chart below.

        __receive_buf()                         n_tty_read()
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
                                        /* from add_wait_queue() */
                                        ...
                                        if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) {
                                        /* Memory operations issued after the
                                           RELEASE may be completed before the
                                           RELEASE operation has completed */
smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head,
                  ldata->read_head);
if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
                                        __add_wait_queue(q, wait);
                                        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock,flags);
                                        /* from add_wait_queue() */
                                        ...
                                        timeout = wait_woken(&wait,
                                          TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout);
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are also other places in drivers/tty/n_tty.c which have similar
calls to waitqueue_active(), so instead of adding many memory barrier
calls, this patch simply removes the call to waitqueue_active(),
leaving just wake_up*() behind.

This fixes both problems because, even though the memory access before
or after the spinlocks in both wake_up*() and add_wait_queue() can
sneak into the critical section, it cannot go past it and the critical
section assures that they will be serialized (please see "INTER-CPU
ACQUIRING BARRIER EFFECTS" in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for a
better explanation).  Moreover, the resulting code is much simpler.

Latency measurement using a ping-pong test over a pty doesn't show any
visible performance drop.

Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
[lizf: Backported to 3.4:
 - adjust context
 - s/wake_up_interruptible_poll/wake_up_interruptible/
 - drop changes to __receive_buf() and n_tty_set_termios()]
Signed-off-by: Zefan Li <[email protected]>
Playgirlkaybraz11 referenced this issue Aug 17, 2024
@Playgirlkaybraz11
README_zh_CN.md
6d8c82c
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@wangyou