[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110109231142.GA28206@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:11:42 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/17] sched: Also serialize ttwu_local() with
p->pi_lock
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 06:32:54PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > @@ -2523,16 +2523,21 @@ static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct
> >
> > BUG_ON(rq != this_rq());
> > BUG_ON(p == current);
> > - lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> > +
> > + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > + raw_spin_lock(&p->pi_lock);
> > + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>
> I _think_ this is safe, this worker can't change cpu afaics. But
> probably Tejun can take a look, just in case.
Yeah, preemption is disabled so it should be safe. Only bound workers
can be woken up by ttwu_local. They get migrated to another CPU only
during CPU offlining. Both CPU offlining and task exit wouldn't
happen while preemption is disabled so it should be safe.
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