[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080428072456.GA26944@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:24:57 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: missing locking in sched_domains code
* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> /*
> + * Protects against concurrent calls to detach_destroy_domains
> + * and arch_init_sched_domains.
> + */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);
> +
> +/*
> * Partition sched domains as specified by the 'ndoms_new'
> * cpumasks in the array doms_new[] of cpumasks. This compares
> * doms_new[] to the current sched domain partitioning, doms_cur[].
> @@ -7756,7 +7762,8 @@ void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_n
> int i, j;
>
> lock_doms_cur();
> -
> + mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
i might be missing something but why not make doms_cur_mutex locking
unconditional and extend it to detach_destroy_domains() as well?
Ingo
--
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