[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AFD2801.7020900@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:33:53 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2.6.32-rc6] sched, kvm: fix race condition involving sched_in_preempt_notifers
In finish_task_switch(), fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers() is called
after finish_lock_switch(). However, depending on architecture,
preemption can be enabled after finish_lock_switch() which breaks the
semantics of preempt notifiers. Move it before finish_arch_switch().
This also makes in notifiers symmetric to out notifiers in terms of
locking - now both are called under rq lock.
NOT_SIGNED_OFF_YET
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
---
Avi, I think kvm should be fine with this but I haven't tested it.
Does this look okay to you? If so, can you please route this through
kvm tree with my signoff?
Thanks.
kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: work/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- work.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ work/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2751,9 +2751,9 @@ static void finish_task_switch(struct rq
prev_state = prev->state;
finish_arch_switch(prev);
perf_event_task_sched_in(current, cpu_of(rq));
+ fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
finish_lock_switch(rq, prev);
- fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
if (mm)
mmdrop(mm);
if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) {
--
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