[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268239242.5279.46.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:40:42 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: select_fallback_rq() && cpuset_lock()
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:06 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I tried to remove the deadlockable cpuset_lock() many times, but my
> attempts were ignored by cpuset maintainers ;)
Yeah, this appears to be an issue, there's no real maintainer atm, parts
are done by the sched folks, parts by the cgroup folks, and I guess
neither really knows everything..
> In particular, see http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125261083613103
/me puts it on the to-review stack.
> But now I have another question. Since 5da9a0fb673a0ea0a093862f95f6b89b3390c31e
> cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked() is called without callback_mutex held by
> try_to_wake_up().
>
> And, without callback_mutex held, isn't it possible to race with, say,
> update_cpumask() which changes cpuset->cpus_allowed? Yes, update_tasks_cpumask()
> should fixup task->cpus_allowed later. But isn't it possible (at least
> in theory) that try_to_wake_up() gets, say, all-zeroes in task->cpus_allowed
> after select_fallback_rq()->cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked() if we race with
> update_cpumask()->cpumask_copy() ?
Hurmm,.. good point,.. yes I think that might be possible.
p->cpus_allowed is synchronized properly, but cs->cpus_allowed is not,
bugger.
I guess the quick fix is to really bail and always use cpu_online_mask
in select_fallback_rq().
--
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