[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080428084904.GA27056@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:49:04 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: missing locking in sched_domains code
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:32:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > /* doms_cur_mutex serializes access to doms_cur[] array */
> > static DEFINE_MUTEX(doms_cur_mutex);
> >
> > +static inline void lock_doms_cur(void)
> > +{
> > + mutex_lock(&doms_cur_mutex);
> > +}
>
> > @@ -7813,8 +7811,10 @@ int arch_reinit_sched_domains(void)
> > int err;
> >
> > get_online_cpus();
> > + lock_doms_cur();
>
> thanks, that looks a lot more clean already. May i ask for another
> thing, if you are hacking on this anyway? Please get rid of the
> lock_doms_cur() complication now that it's not conditional - an open
> coded mutex_lock(&sched_doms_mutex) looks more readable - it gives a
> clear idea about what's happening. Also, please rename sched_doms_mutex
> to something less tongue-twisting - such as sched_domains_mutex. Hm?
Your wish is my order:
Subject: [PATCH] sched: fix locking in arch_reinit_sched_domains
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Concurrent calls to detach_destroy_domains and arch_init_sched_domains
were prevented by the old scheduler subsystem cpu hotplug mutex. When
this got converted to get_online_cpus() the locking got broken.
Unlike before now several processes can concurrently enter the critical
sections that were protected by the old lock.
So use the already present doms_cur_mutex to protect these sections again.
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched.c | 20 +++++---------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rt_rq, init
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(task_group_lock);
/* doms_cur_mutex serializes access to doms_cur[] array */
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(doms_cur_mutex);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);
#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
#ifdef CONFIG_USER_SCHED
@@ -358,21 +358,9 @@ static inline void set_task_rq(struct ta
#endif
}
-static inline void lock_doms_cur(void)
-{
- mutex_lock(&doms_cur_mutex);
-}
-
-static inline void unlock_doms_cur(void)
-{
- mutex_unlock(&doms_cur_mutex);
-}
-
#else
static inline void set_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu) { }
-static inline void lock_doms_cur(void) { }
-static inline void unlock_doms_cur(void) { }
#endif /* CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED */
@@ -7755,7 +7743,7 @@ void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_n
{
int i, j;
- lock_doms_cur();
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
/* always unregister in case we don't destroy any domains */
unregister_sched_domain_sysctl();
@@ -7804,7 +7792,7 @@ match2:
register_sched_domain_sysctl();
- unlock_doms_cur();
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
}
#if defined(CONFIG_SCHED_MC) || defined(CONFIG_SCHED_SMT)
@@ -7813,8 +7801,10 @@ int arch_reinit_sched_domains(void)
int err;
get_online_cpus();
+ mutex_lock(&sched_domains_mutex);
detach_destroy_domains(&cpu_online_map);
err = arch_init_sched_domains(&cpu_online_map);
+ mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
put_online_cpus();
return err;
--
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