On 2015/8/28 11:13, Shawn Lin wrote:
From: Jialing Fu <jlfu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The following panic is captured in ker3.14, but the issue still exists
in latest kernel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 20.738217] c0 3136 (Compiler) Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference
at virtual address 00000578
......
[ 20.738499] c0 3136 (Compiler) PC is at _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x60
[ 20.738527] c0 3136 (Compiler) LR is at _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x60
[ 20.740134] c0 3136 (Compiler) Call trace:
[ 20.740165] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0008ee900>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x60
[ 20.740200] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000dd024>] __wake_up+0x1c/0x54
[ 20.740230] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000639414>] mmc_wait_data_done+0x28/0x34
[ 20.740262] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0006391a0>] mmc_request_done+0xa4/0x220
[ 20.740314] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000656894>] sdhci_tasklet_finish+0xac/0x264
[ 20.740352] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a2b58>] tasklet_action+0xa0/0x158
[ 20.740382] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a2078>] __do_softirq+0x10c/0x2e4
[ 20.740411] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc0000a24bc>] irq_exit+0x8c/0xc0
[ 20.740439] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc00008489c>] handle_IRQ+0x48/0xac
[ 20.740469] c0 3136 (Compiler) [<ffffffc000081428>] gic_handle_irq+0x38/0x7c
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in SMP, "mrq" has race condition between below two paths:
path1: CPU0: <tasklet context>
static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
{
mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
//
// If CPU0 has just finished "is_done_rcv = true" in path1, and at
// this moment, IRQ or ICache line missing happens in CPU0.
// What happens in CPU1 (path2)?
//
// If the mmcqd thread in CPU1(path2) hasn't entered to sleep mode:
// path2 would have chance to break from wait_event_interruptible
// in mmc_wait_for_data_req_done and continue to run for next
// mmc_request (mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep).
//
// Within mmc_blk_rq_prep, mrq is cleared to 0.
// If below line still gets host from "mrq" as the result of
// compiler, the panic happens as we traced.
wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
}
path2: CPU1: <The mmcqd thread runs mmc_queue_thread>
static int mmc_wait_for_data_req_done(...
{
...
while (1) {
wait_event_interruptible(context_info->wait,
(context_info->is_done_rcv ||
context_info->is_new_req));
static void mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep(...
{
...
memset(brq, 0, sizeof(struct mmc_blk_request));
This issue happens very coincidentally; however adding mdelay(1) in
mmc_wait_data_done as below could duplicate it easily.
static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
{
mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
+ mdelay(1);
wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
}
Hi, ulf
We find this bug on Intel-C3230RK platform for very small probability.
Whereas I can easily reproduce this case if I add a mdelay(1) or longer
delay as Jialing did.
This patch seems useful to me. Should we push it forward? :)
At runtime, IRQ or ICache line missing may just happen at the same place
of the mdelay(1).
This patch gets the mmc_context_info at the beginning of function, it can
avoid this race condition.
Signed-off-by: Jialing Fu <jlfu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
index 664b617..0520064 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
@@ -358,8 +358,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_start_bkops);
*/
static void mmc_wait_data_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
{
- mrq->host->context_info.is_done_rcv = true;
- wake_up_interruptible(&mrq->host->context_info.wait);
+ struct mmc_context_info *context_info = &mrq->host->context_info;
+
+ context_info->is_done_rcv = true;
+ wake_up_interruptible(&context_info->wait);
}
static void mmc_wait_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
--
Best Regards
Shawn Lin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
