[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0711090259u7f2f2f64qe8b6330e55d4b99f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:59:15 +0100
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: sukadev@...ibm.com, balbir@...ibm.com,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
efault@....de
Subject: Re: [BUG]: Crash with CONFIG_FAIR_CGROUP_SCHED=y
On 09/11/2007, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> As a solution to this problem, I moved sched_fork() call, which
> initializes scheduler related fields on a new task, before
> copy_namespaces(). I am not sure though whether moving up will
> cause other side-effects. Do you see any issue?
Should be ok (IMHO and at first glance :-)
> - The second problem exposed by this test is that task_new_fair()
> assumes that parent and child will be part of the same group (which
> needn't be as this test shows). As a result, cfs_rq->curr can be NULL
> for the child.
Would it be better, logically-wise, to use is_same_group() instead?
Although, we can't have 2 groups with cfs_rq->curr != NULL on the same
CPU... so if the child belongs to another group, it's cfs_rq->curr is
automatically NULL indeed.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists