[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1266225126.5273.720.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:12:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rcu_dereference() without protection in select_task_rq_fair()
On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 09:04 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK, but doesn't the "preempt_count() != 0" that is in the current version
> of rcu_read_lock_sched_held() already cover this check?
Hmm, yes it should.
> In other words, I believe that I have located a usage of for_each_domain()
> that violates the rule that it may only be called within preempt-disabled
> sections.
>>From the trace:
> [<ffffffff81033ec4>] select_task_rq_fair+0xc1/0x686
> [<ffffffff810353f4>] wake_up_new_task+0x1e/0x13e
Which reads like:
void wake_up_new_task(...)
{
...
int cpu __maybe_unused = get_cpu();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
* Fork balancing, do it here and not earlier because:
* - cpus_allowed can change in the fork path
* - any previously selected cpu might disappear through hotplug
*
* We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning
* ->cpus_allowed is stable, we have preemption disabled, meaning
* cpu_online_mask is stable.
*/
cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
#endif
...
put_cpu()
}
I cannot see how we can get there without preemption disabled.
--
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