[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269897564.12097.372.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:19:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, abogani@...ware.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/urgent] rcu: protect fork-time cgroup access
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Add an rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock() pair to protect a fork-time
> cgroup access. This seems likely to be a false positive.
>
> Located by: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> sched.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 9ab3cd7..d4bb5e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2621,7 +2621,9 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, int clone_flags)
> if (p->sched_class->task_fork)
> p->sched_class->task_fork(p);
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
> if (likely(sched_info_on()))
What got accessed? This patch just looks wrong.
--
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