[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345478620.23018.71.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:03:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, dhowells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: lockdep trace from posix timers
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:58 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:32 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess we could steal the entire list and requeue it afterwards and
> > > > lift TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME along with it..
> > >
> > > We can't. This can race with exit_task_work(). And this can break
> > > fput(), the task can return to the userspace without __fput().
> >
> > So we could put that spinlock back around cancel and run and leave add
> > lockless. That'd solve my immediate problem but its not something I'm
> > proud of.
>
> Which problem?
/me doing task_work_add() from under rq->lock..
> We can probably use bit_spin_lock() and avoid ->pi_lock.
tglx will kill us both for even thinking of bit-spinlocks.
> Of course, we can add the new lock into task_struct, but this is not nice.
If we can limit the lock to cancel/run I'm ok.
--
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