Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Mikael Pettersson wrote: >> > >> > Starting with 2.6.31-rc8 and reverting >> > >> > 85dfd81dc57e8183a277ddd7a56aa65c96f3f487 pty: fix data loss when stopped (^S/^Q) >> > d945cb9cce20ac7143c2de8d88b187f62db99bdc pty: Rework the pty layer to use the normal buffering logic >> > >> > in that order gives me a kernel that works on both x86 and powerpc64. >> > >> > So the bug is definitely limited to the pty buffering logic change. >> >> Thanks a lot for this information, adding somme CCs to the list. > > Mikael, is there any way to get the gcc testsuite to show the "expected" > vs "result" cases when the failures occur, so that we can see what the > pattern is ("it drops one character every 8kB" or something like that). > > However, I get the feeling that it's really the same bug that > OGAWA-san already fixed - and that his fix just doesn't always do a 100% > of the job. > > So what Ogawa did was to make sure that we flush any pending data whenever > we;re checking "do we have any data left". He did that by calling out to > tty_flush_to_ldisc(), which should flush the data through to the ldisc. > > The keyword here being "should". In flush_to_ldisc(), we have at least one > case where we say "we'll delay it a bit more": > > if (!tty->receive_room) { > schedule_delayed_work(&tty->buf.work, 1); > break; > } > > and while I think this _should_ be ok (because if there is no > receive-room, then we'll hopefully always return non-zero from > "input_available_p()". However, we do have this really odd case that the > reader side will do "n_tty_set_room()" onlyl _after_ having checked for > input_available_p(), and so maybe we do sometimes trigger the case that > > - input_available_p() tries to flush to the input buffer before checking > how much data is available, by calling 'tty_flush_to_ldisc()' > > - but 'tty_flush_to_ldisc()' won't do anything, because tty->receive_room > is zero. > > - so now input_available_p will say "I don't have any data", even though > there was data in the write buffers. > > - we'll notice that the other end has hung up, and return EOF/EIO. > > - which is very WRONG, because the other end may have hung up, but before > it did that, it wrote data that is still in the write queues, and we > should have returned that data. > > Anyway, I'm not at all sure that the "receive_room == 0" case can happen > at all, but maybe it can. Ogawa-san? If I'm not missing, I think it doesn't have big change with old code. But I would need to check more deeply. Um.., If "receive_room == 0 && tty->read_cnt == 0" is possible, I wonder why reverting buffer handling fixes the problem. Well, anyway, I'd like to reproduce this on my machine. Could you tell me the version of tools? I guess gcc testsuite using the gcc's source (svn revision?), expect, dejagnu, tcl. (BTW, I'm using debian testing. If it can be reproduced on kvm, I can install distro version which you are using) Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html