Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 10 Apr 2022 08:14:03 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@quicinc.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
        "Kenta.Tada@sony.com" <Kenta.Tada@sony.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Ed Tsai <ed.tsai@mediatek.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/tracing: Report TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT tasks as
 TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
Message-ID: <YlJ1q0zohdPvQBUd@kroah.com>
References: <20220120162520.570782-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20220120162520.570782-3-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20220409234224.q57dr43bpcll3ryv@airbuntu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220409234224.q57dr43bpcll3ryv@airbuntu>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:42:24AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> +CC stable
> 
> On 01/20/22 16:25, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT currently isn't part of TASK_REPORT, thus a task blocking
> > on an rtlock will appear as having a task state == 0, IOW TASK_RUNNING.
> > 
> > The actual state is saved in p->saved_state, but reading it after reading
> > p->__state has a few issues:
> > o that could still be TASK_RUNNING in the case of e.g. rt_spin_lock
> > o ttwu_state_match() might have changed that to TASK_RUNNING
> > 
> > As pointed out by Eric, adding TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT to TASK_REPORT implies
> > exposing a new state to userspace tools which way not know what to do with
> > them. The only information that needs to be conveyed here is that a task is
> > waiting on an rt_mutex, which matches TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE - there's no
> > need for a new state.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> 
> Any objection for this to be picked up by stable? We care about Patch 1 only in
> this series for stable, but it seems sensible to pick this one too, no strong
> feeling if it is omitted though.
> 
> AFAICT it seems the problem dates back since commit:
> 
> 	1593baab910d ("sched/debug: Implement consistent task-state printing")
> 
> or even before. I think v4.14+ is good enough.


<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>