lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/4] dma-mapping: benchmark: fix up kthread-related error handling
From
On 2024-05-04 12:47 pm, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> kthread creation failure is invalidly handled inside do_map_benchmark().
> The put_task_struct() calls on the error path are supposed to balance the
> get_task_struct() calls which only happen after all the kthreads are
> successfully created. Rollback using kthread_stop() for already created
> kthreads in case of such failure.
>
> In normal situation call kthread_stop_put() to gracefully stop kthreads
> and put their task refcounts. This should be done for all started
> kthreads.

Although strictly there were two overlapping bugs here, I'd agree that
it really doesn't seem worth the bother of trying to distinguish them.
I'm far from a kthread expert, but as best I can tell this looks like it
achieves a sensible final state. Modulo one nit below,

Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>

> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org).
>
> Fixes: 65789daa8087 ("dma-mapping: add benchmark support for streaming DMA APIs")
> Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
> ---
> kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c
> index 02205ab53b7e..2478957cf9f8 100644
> --- a/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c
> +++ b/kernel/dma/map_benchmark.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map)
> if (IS_ERR(tsk[i])) {
> pr_err("create dma_map thread failed\n");
> ret = PTR_ERR(tsk[i]);
> + while (--i >= 0)
> + kthread_stop(tsk[i]);

I think this means we'd end up actually starting the threads purely to
get them to see the KTHREAD_SHOULD_STOP flag and exit again? Not that
I'm too fussed about optimising an unexpected error path, however I
can't help but wonder if we might only need a put_task_struct() if we
can safely assume that the threads have never been started at this point.

Thanks,
Robin.

> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -139,13 +141,17 @@ static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map)
>
> msleep_interruptible(map->bparam.seconds * 1000);
>
> - /* wait for the completion of benchmark threads */
> + /* wait for the completion of all started benchmark threads */
> for (i = 0; i < threads; i++) {
> - ret = kthread_stop(tsk[i]);
> - if (ret)
> - goto out;
> + int kthread_ret = kthread_stop_put(tsk[i]);
> +
> + if (kthread_ret)
> + ret = kthread_ret;
> }
>
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> loops = atomic64_read(&map->loops);
> if (likely(loops > 0)) {
> u64 map_variance, unmap_variance;
> @@ -170,8 +176,6 @@ static int do_map_benchmark(struct map_benchmark_data *map)
> }
>
> out:
> - for (i = 0; i < threads; i++)
> - put_task_struct(tsk[i]);
> put_device(map->dev);
> kfree(tsk);
> return ret;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 18:24    [W:0.076 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site