Hi Cong,
Yes, your patches fix the warnings.
Tested-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyk...@google.com>
Thanks!
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 11:00 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 05:41 +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> >> Sorry, the warning is still there.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure adding sched_annotate_sleep() does anything, since it's
>> >> defined as (in case CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP is not set):
>> >> # define sched_annotate_sleep() do { } while (0)
>> >
>> > Thanks again for testing.
>> >
>> > But you do have CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP set, which triggers a check in
>> > __might_sleep() :
>> >
>> > WARN_ONCE(current->state != TASK_RUNNING && current->task_state_change,
>> >
>> > Relevant commit is 00845eb968ead28007338b2bb852b8beef816583
>> > ("sched: don't cause task state changes in nested sleep debugging")
>> >
>> > Another relevant commit was 26cabd31259ba43f68026ce3f62b78094124333f
>> > ("sched, net: Clean up sk_wait_event() vs. might_sleep()")
>> >
>> > Before release_sock() could process the backlog in process context, only
>> > lock_sock() could trigger the issue, so my fix at that time was commit
>> > cb7cf8a33ff73cf638481d1edf883d8968f934f8 ("inet: Clean up
>> > inet_csk_wait_for_connect() vs. might_sleep()")
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the context, but isn't the original warning reported by Andrey is
>> from inet_wait_for_connect()? You seem only patch some dccp function
>> which is why it is still there?
>>
>> It should be the following, no?
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> index 9648c97..bbd8159 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
>> @@ -544,6 +544,7 @@ static long inet_wait_for_connect(struct sock *sk,
>> long timeo, int writebias)
>> * without closing the socket.
>> */
>> while ((1 << sk->sk_state) & (TCPF_SYN_SENT | TCPF_SYN_RECV)) {
>> + sched_annotate_sleep();
>> release_sock(sk);
>> timeo = schedule_timeout(timeo);
>> lock_sock(sk);
>
> Yes, this would be one of the locations needing this.
>
>
>
