[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080414070234.GA7482@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:02:34 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gautham Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc9 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency
detected
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:54:05AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Fun,
>
> I will need to sort out this code before I can say anything about that,
> perhaps Gautham and or Rafael have ideas before I can come up with
> something.. ?
Why not simply removing the get/put_online_cpus() pair in sched_getaffinity?
It's superfluous since we have already a read_lock/read_unlock pair there
which does disable/enable cpu hotplug anyway.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4873,7 +4873,6 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, cpumas
struct task_struct *p;
int retval;
- get_online_cpus();
read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
retval = -ESRCH;
@@ -4889,8 +4888,6 @@ long sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, cpumas
out_unlock:
read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
- put_online_cpus();
-
return retval;
}
--
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