Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hi Thomas, On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:05:23 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. > > Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly > >

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hi Thomas, On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:05:23 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. > > Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly > > tweaking

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/22/2016 12:05 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly tweaking 'tasklet_struct' fields and calling other APIs. Hunting

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/22/2016 12:05 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly tweaking 'tasklet_struct' fields and calling other APIs. Hunting

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. > Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly > tweaking 'tasklet_struct' fields and calling other APIs. Hunting them > and fixing them probably would be an

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

B1;2802;0cOn Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > I requested you to include this patch but now am not sure anymore. > Looks like there are almost 30 more users which are directly > tweaking 'tasklet_struct' fields and calling other APIs. Hunting them > and fixing them probably would be an

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/21/2016 5:42 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: Hello, On (09/21/16 10:23), Santosh Shilimkar wrote: [...] Am assuming one of the driver in your test is using the DECLARE_TASKLET to init the tasklet and killed by tasklet_kill() which leaves that tasklet to be still scheduled by tasklet

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/21/2016 5:42 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: Hello, On (09/21/16 10:23), Santosh Shilimkar wrote: [...] Am assuming one of the driver in your test is using the DECLARE_TASKLET to init the tasklet and killed by tasklet_kill() which leaves that tasklet to be still scheduled by tasklet

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hello, On (09/21/16 10:23), Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > > tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling > > [..] > > > > @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct > > > > { > > > > t->next = NULL; > > > > t->state = 0; > > > > - atomic_set(>count, 0); >

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hello, On (09/21/16 10:23), Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > > tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling > > [..] > > > > @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct > > > > { > > > > t->next = NULL; > > > > t->state = 0; > > > > - atomic_set(>count, 0); >

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/21/2016 1:09 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: didn't look into the issue, but this thing Thanks for reporting Sergey. tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling [..] @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct { t->next = NULL; t->state = 0; -

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

On 9/21/2016 1:09 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: didn't look into the issue, but this thing Thanks for reporting Sergey. tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling [..] @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct { t->next = NULL; t->state = 0; -

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

didn't look into the issue, but this thing > > tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling [..] > > @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct > > { > > t->next = NULL; > > t->state = 0; > > - atomic_set(>count, 0); > > + atomic_set(>count, 1);

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

didn't look into the issue, but this thing > > tasklet_init() == Init and Enable scheduling [..] > > @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void tasklet_init(struct tasklet_struct > > { > > t->next = NULL; > > t->state = 0; > > - atomic_set(>count, 0); > > + atomic_set(>count, 1);

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hello, On (09/20/16 14:55), a...@linux-foundation.org wrote: > -- > From: Santosh Shilimkar > Subject: softirq: fix tasklet_kill() and its users > > Semantically the expectation from the tasklet init/kill API should be as

Re: + softirq-fix-tasklet_kill-and-its-users.patch added to -mm tree

Hello, On (09/20/16 14:55), a...@linux-foundation.org wrote: > -- > From: Santosh Shilimkar > Subject: softirq: fix tasklet_kill() and its users > > Semantically the expectation from the tasklet init/kill API should be as > below. > >