Re: [setsockopt] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1444 at kernel/sched/core.c:7088 __might_sleep+0x51/0x16f()
From: chas williams - CONTRACTOR <hidden>
Date: 2014-08-07 17:09:35
Also in:
lkml, oe-lkp
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 17:17:41 +0200 Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Subject: atm: Fix blocking in wait loop One should not call blocking primitives inside a wait loop, since both require task_struct::state to sleep, so the inner will destroy the outer state. In this instance sigd_enq() will possible sleep for alloc_skb(), now if I understand the code right, we do not actually need to call sigd_enq() after the initial prepare_to_wait(), because we test the termination condition before schedule() anyhow. So we can simply move it up a bit and avoid the entire confusion. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> --- net/atm/svc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/net/atm/svc.c b/net/atm/svc.c index d8e5d0c2ebbc..445ac238b69b 100644 --- a/net/atm/svc.c +++ b/net/atm/svc.c@@ -297,8 +297,8 @@ static int svc_listen(struct socket *sock, int backlog) goto out; } set_bit(ATM_VF_WAITING, &vcc->flags); - prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); sigd_enq(vcc, as_listen, NULL, NULL, &vcc->local); + prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); while (test_bit(ATM_VF_WAITING, &vcc->flags) && sigd) { schedule(); prepare_to_wait(sk_sleep(sk), &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
This isn't the only place that we queue a message for the signalling daemon after a prepare_to_wait() uninterruptibly so this patch would be incomplete as is. What bothers me is the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE -- I don't have a good reason why any of these should be sleeping uninterruptibly.