Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/tracing: Report TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT tasks as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE

[Qais Yousef]

On 04/10/22 08:14, Greg KH wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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>

Apologies.

commit: 25795ef6299f07ce3838f3253a9cb34f64efcfae
Subject: sched/tracing: Report TASK_RTLOCK_WAIT tasks as TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE

I am interested in Patch 1 in this series as I know it impacts some Android
5.10 users. But this patch seems a good candidate for stable too since it was
observed by a user (Uwe) and AFAICT the problem dates back to v4.14+ kernels.

Suggested kernels: v4.14+. This has already been picked up by AUTOSEL for
v5.15+ stable trees.

Hope I got the process right this time.

Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef