[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091113095516.GD1364@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:55:16 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.32-rc6] sched, kvm: fix race condition involving
sched_in_preempt_notifers
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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?
I'd like to have Avi's Ack for it, but we want to do sched.c changes via
the scheduler tree.
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