[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B138BC8.3090008@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:09:28 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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
On 11/14/2009 10:06 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 11:55 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * 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.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd like to have Avi's Ack for it,
>
> Acked-by: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
>
>> but we want to do sched.c changes via
>> the scheduler tree.
So, this one was a bust. Given that the only platform which might
have been affected by the original bug is ia64 and it's very unlikely
to happen. I think reverting this from sched/urgent would be the
right thing to do at this point if the branch is headed for another
push to Linus. Avi, what do you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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