[parisc-linux] keyboard_tasklet bug?

Ryan Bradetich rbradetich@uswest.net
29 Nov 2001 00:45:26 -0700

Hello parisc-linux hackers,

I have spent the last couple of evenings exploring new (to me anyways)
parts of the kernel tracking down a SMP hang on my C200+.  What I found
appears to be a more generic bug, so I'm posting it here for ideas on
how to fix it, or for someone to explain to me why this isn't a bug :)

After quite a bit of tracking the problem down, I figured out the kernel
wasn't halting, but was stuck in the following infinate loop from
tasklet_action() in kernel/softirq.c

while (list) {
	struct tasklet_struct *t = list;

	list = list->next;

	if (tasklet_trylock(t)) {
		if (!atomic_read(&t->count)) {
			if (!test_and_clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, 						&t->state))

	t->next = tasklet_vec[cpu].list;
	tasklet_vec[cpu].list = t;
	__cpu_raise_softirq(cpu, TASKLET_SOFTIRQ);

I eventually figured out that the if(!atomic_read(&t->count)) was
failing... and the task would be added back into the list via the
following lines of code:

	t->next = tasklet_vec[cpu].list;
	tasklet_vec[cpu].list = t;

This loop would continue since the atomic_read(&t->count) was always
non-zero, and the task was always being put back on the list.

I figured out that the keyboard_task was the task the atomic_read
was failing on, and started to investigate why.  I figured out that 
the keyboard_tasklet was being initialized disabled via the following
macro from include/linux/interrupt.h:

	#define DECLARE_TASKLET_DISABLED(name, func, data) \
	struct tasklet_struct name = { NULL, 0, ATOMIC_INIT(1), func, data }

This macro initialized the ->count to 1.

I also figurd out that the keyboard_tasklet was being scheduled via the
schedule_tasklet() before the enable_tasklet() was called it.  (The
enable_tasklet() provides a memory barrior, then calls atomic_dec()
on the ->count of the tasklet, making it 0).

This trace shows the path to the first schedule_tasklet() of the
keyboard_tasklet, starting with the start_kernel() since that is the
common point between schedule_tasklet() and enable_tasklet().

1. start_kernel()
2. console_init()
3. con_init()
4. vc_init()
5. reset_terminal()
6. set_leds()
7. schedule_tasklet()

1. start_kernel()
2. rest_init()
3. init() via kernel_thread.
4. do_base_setup()
5. do_init_calls()
6. chr_dev_init()
7. tty_init()
8. kbd_init()
9. enable_tasklet()

Looking in the start_kernel() ... console_init() is the 9th function
called, where as rest_init() is the last function called.

I am not sure why this only showed up under SMP for my on the C200+, but
it was _very_ reproducable.  As a temporary solution (and to verify I'd
found the problem), I commented out the set_leds() in reset_terminal()
and the C200+ boots both SMP and UP fine.  I know this is not the proper
fix, but I am not sure how to fix this problem, thus my post to the list

Thanks for reading, and any feedback welcome!

- Ryan