[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110121155323.GA2988@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:53:23 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, acme@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, fweisbec@...il.com, roland@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf: Fix find_get_context() vs
perf_event_exit_task() race
On 01/21, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * tip-bot for Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > @@ -6127,7 +6133,7 @@ static void perf_event_exit_task_context(struct task_struct *child, int ctxn)
> > * scheduled, so we are now safe from rescheduling changing
> > * our context.
> > */
> > - child_ctx = child->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn];
> > + child_ctx = rcu_dereference(child->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
> > task_ctx_sched_out(child_ctx, EVENT_ALL);
> >
> > /*
>
> hm, this one's causing:
>
> [ 25.557579] ===================================================
> [ 25.561361] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
Oh, indeed, I am stupid!
I added rcu_dereference() because it has smp_read_barrier_depends(),
but I forgot about rcu_dereference_check().
I'll send the fix soon...
Oleg.
--
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