[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1201020454.6341.29.camel@lappy>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:47:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: don't take a mutex from interrupt context
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 22:21 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:25:38PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -1428,9 +1428,9 @@ static void print_cfs_stats(struct seq_f
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, &cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs);
> > #endif
> > - lock_task_group_list();
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq)
> > print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, cfs_rq);
>
> Isn't there a possibility that print_cfs_rq() can block?
It should not, that would be another bug, but from a quick glance at the
code it doesn't do that.
>
> > - unlock_task_group_list();
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > #endif
> >
>
--
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