[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1228834342.8684.5.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:52:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, efault@....de, vatsa@...ibm.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched: CPU remove deadlock fix
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 08:47 -0600, Brian King wrote:
> This patch fixes a possible deadlock scenario in the CPU remove path.
> migration_call grabs rq->lock, then wakes up everything on rq->migration_queue
> with the lock held. Then one of the tasks on the migration queue ends up
> calling tg_shares_up which then also tries to acquire the same rq->lock.
Looks ok, does lockdep agree?
> Signed-off-by: Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> kernel/sched.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff -puN kernel/sched.c~sched_cpu_down_deadlock_fix kernel/sched.c
> --- linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c~sched_cpu_down_deadlock_fix 2008-12-09 08:42:09.000000000 -0600
> +++ linux-2.6-bjking1/kernel/sched.c 2008-12-09 08:42:09.000000000 -0600
> @@ -6587,7 +6587,9 @@ migration_call(struct notifier_block *nf
> req = list_entry(rq->migration_queue.next,
> struct migration_req, list);
> list_del_init(&req->list);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
> complete(&req->done);
> + spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
> break;
> _
--
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