[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081108092802.GA32664@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:28:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, adobriyan@...il.com,
Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] account_group_exec_runtime: fix the racy usage of
->signal
* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 11/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- K-28/kernel/sched_stats.h~A_G_E_R_FIX 2008-11-07 17:32:02.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ K-28/kernel/sched_stats.h 2008-11-07 17:44:39.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -351,10 +351,12 @@ static inline void account_group_exec_ru
> > > unsigned long long ns)
> > > {
> > > struct signal_struct *sig;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > >
> > > - sig = tsk->signal;
> > > - if (unlikely(!sig))
> > > + if (unlikely(!lock_task_sighand(tsk, &flags)))
> > > return;
> >
> > i think this will lock up:
>
> Ah. I worried about this, but convinced myself this is OK...
>
> > the signal lock must not nest inside the rq
> > lock, and these accounting functions are called from within the
> > scheduler.
>
> Why? we seem to never do task_rq_lock() under ->siglock ?
signal_wake_up() ?
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