[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100628141927.GA9306@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:19:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ilya Loginov <isloginov@...il.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: Fix race between init and kthreadd -v2
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> +static __initdata DEFINE_MUTEX(kthreadd_lock);
> + /*
> + * We need to spawn init first so that it obtains pid-1, however
> + * the init task will end up wanting to create kthreads, which
> + * if we schedule it before we create kthreadd, will OOPS.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&kthreadd_lock);
> kernel_thread(kernel_init, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_SIGHAND);
> numa_default_policy();
> pid = kernel_thread(kthreadd, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES);
> rcu_read_lock();
> kthreadd_task = find_task_by_pid_ns(pid, &init_pid_ns);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> + mutex_unlock(&kthreadd_lock);
> unlock_kernel();
>
> /*
> @@ -847,6 +856,13 @@ static noinline int init_post(void)
>
> static int __init kernel_init(void * unused)
> {
> + /*
> + * We spawned this thread while holding this lock, ensure the
> + * locked section in rest_init() is complete before proceeding.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&kthreadd_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kthreadd_lock);
I think you may be using a mutex as a completion in essence. Why not use
completions instead?
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