[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120106141915.GA21150@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:19:15 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Motohiro Kosaki <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] TASK_DEAD task is able to be woken up in special
condition
On 01/06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> But this makes me worry. We are doing a lot of things after
> exit_mm(). In particular we take tasklist_lock in exit_notify()
> and then do_exit() takes task_lock(). But every unlock + lock
> implies mb(). So how it was possible to hit this bug???
Damn. please ignore me.
Somehow I forgot that _there is no_ spin_unlock_wait() in the
current code ;)
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