On 11/05/2014 09:39 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 11/05/2014 09:33 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 12:12:53PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> Holding tty_mutex is no longer required to serialize changes to
>>> the tty_count or to prevent concurrent opens of closing ttys;
>>> tty_lock() is sufficient.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 6 ------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>>> index ea8c6cae8d12..e59de81c39a9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>>> @@ -1804,10 +1804,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file
>>> *filp)
>>> * each iteration we avoid any problems.
>>> */
>>> while (1) {
>>> - /* Guard against races with tty->count changes elsewhere and
>>> - opens on /dev/tty */
>>> -
>>> - mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
>>> tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>>> tty_closing = tty->count <= 1;
>>> o_tty_closing = o_tty &&
>>> @@ -1840,7 +1836,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file
>>> *filp)
>>> printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %s: read/write wait queue active!\n",
>>> __func__, tty_name(tty, buf));
>>> tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>>> - mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>>> schedule();
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> The code in my tree in this section of tty_release() looks a bit
>> different, so I had to hand-apply this patch.
>
> Although there's nothing wrong with your version, I'm wondering why this
> didn't apply cleanly.
>
> While I go look at your tree, can you check that these patches are
> sitting on top of the earlier two patches you applied to your tty-linus
> branch; specifically 'tty: Fix high cpu load if tty is unreleasable' and
> 'tty: Prevent "read/write wait queue active!" log flooding'?
Yep, that's the problem: your 'tty-testing' branch doesn't have the 3 patches
from me that you put in your 'tty-linus' branch earlier this evening. Those are:
serial: Fix divide-by-zero fault in uart_get_divisor()
tty: Fix high cpu load if tty is unreleasable
tty: Prevent "read/write wait queue active!" log flooding
How can I help fix this?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
>> I've included the version
>> I used below, please verify I didn't mess it up.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>>
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> index ea8c6cae8d12..e59de81c39a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>> @@ -1804,10 +1804,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file
>> *filp)
>> * each iteration we avoid any problems.
>> */
>> while (1) {
>> - /* Guard against races with tty->count changes elsewhere and
>> - opens on /dev/tty */
>> -
>> - mutex_lock(&tty_mutex);
>> tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>> tty_closing = tty->count <= 1;
>> o_tty_closing = o_tty &&
>> @@ -1840,7 +1836,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>> printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: %s: read/write wait queue active!\n",
>> __func__, tty_name(tty, buf));
>> tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>> - mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> schedule();
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1891,7 +1886,6 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>> }
>>
>> - mutex_unlock(&tty_mutex);
>> tty_unlock_pair(tty, o_tty);
>> /* At this point, the tty->count == 0 should ensure a dead tty
>> cannot be re-opened by a racing opener */
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
