FROMLIST: timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process()
Users of usleep_range() expect that it will _never_ return in less time
than the minimum passed parameter. However, nothing in any of the code
ensures this. Specifically:
usleep_range() => do_usleep_range() => schedule_hrtimeout_range() =>
schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock() just ends up calling schedule() with an
appropriate timeout set using the hrtimer. If someone else happens to
wake up our task then we'll happily return from usleep_range() early.
msleep() already has code to handle this case since it will loop as long
as there was still time left. usleep_range() had no such loop.
The problem is is easily demonstrated with a small bit of test code:
static int usleep_test_task(void *data)
{
atomic_t *done = data;
ktime_t start, end;
start = ktime_get();
usleep_range(50000, 100000);
end = ktime_get();
pr_info("Requested 50000 - 100000 us. Actually slept for %llu us\n",
(unsigned long long)ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(end, start)));
atomic_set(done, 1);
return 0;
}
static void run_usleep_test(void)
{
struct task_struct *t;
atomic_t done;
atomic_set(&done, 0);
t = kthread_run(usleep_test_task, &done, "usleep_test_task");
while (!atomic_read(&done)) {
wake_up_process(t);
udelay(1000);
}
kthread_stop(t);
}
If you run the above code without this patch you get things like:
Requested 50000 - 100000 us. Actually slept for 967 us
If you run the above code _with_ this patch, you get:
Requested 50000 - 100000 us. Actually slept for 50001 us
Presumably this problem was not detected before because:
- It's not terribly common to use wake_up_process() directly.
- Other ways for processes to wake up are not typically mixed with
usleep_range().
- There aren't lots of places that use usleep_range(), since many people
call either msleep() or udelay().
Change-Id: Ibb93ce0dd9fb9688d4a8d10447c098c1dfbd7a1d
Reported-by: Tao Huang <huangtao@rock-chips.com>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Mohr <andim2@users.sf.net>
(am from https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/
9369963/)