[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw84RRBxT0QwDT6dg94OqreS8vwMq7Qog+o0QXqR8vgEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:21:51 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core/locking changes for v3.2
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> Note, you will get a conflict in kernel/posix-cpu-timers.c, which i
> resolved in -tip the following way:
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cputimer->lock, flags);
> if (!cputimer->running) {
> cputimer->running = 1;
> /*
> * The POSIX timer interface allows for absolute time expiry
> * values through the TIMER_ABSTIME flag, therefore we have
> * to synchronize the timer to the clock every time we start
> * it.
> */
> thread_group_cputime(tsk, &sum);
> update_gt_cputime(&cputimer->cputime, &sum);
> }
> *times = cputimer->cputime;
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cputimer->lock, flags);
That seems like a completely bogus resolution. You are re-introducing
the incorrect ABBA nesting of cputimer->lock and rq->lock, and
basically undoing commit bcd5cff7216f.
So I did that resolve differently in a way that I believe is correct.
But please do check the end result out. Peter?
Linus
--
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