[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hzu-7uAXLqP+J48DaqLUYQWTESMNwPMYiiwrU2ZoOsgqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:33:26 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: fix init NOHZ_IDLE flag
2013/2/8 Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>:
> On 8 February 2013 16:35, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>> What if the following happen (inventing function names but you get the idea):
>>
>> CPU 0 CPU 1
>>
>> dom = new_domain(...) {
>> nr_cpus_busy = 0;
>> set_idle(CPU 1); old_dom =get_dom()
>> clear_idle(CPU 1)
>> }
>> rcu_assign_pointer(cpu1_dom, dom);
>>
>>
>> Can this scenario happen?
>
> This scenario will be:
>
> CPU 0 CPU 1
>
> detach_and_destroy_domain {
> rcu_assign_pointer(cpu1_dom, NULL);
> }
>
> dom = new_domain(...) {
> nr_cpus_busy = 0;
> set_idle(CPU 1); old_dom =get_dom()
> old_dom is null
> //clear_idle(CPU
> 1) can't happen because a null domain is attached so we will never
> call nohz_kick_needed which is the only place where we can clear_idle
> }
> rcu_assign_pointer(cpu1_dom, dom);
So is the following possible?
= CPU 0 = = CPU 1=
detach_and_destroy_domain {
rcu_assign_pointer(cpu1_dom, NULL);
}
dom = new_domain(...) {
nr_cpus_busy = 0;
set_idle(CPU 1);
}
clear_idle(CPU 1)
dom = rcu_dereference(cpu1_dom)
//dom == NULL, return
rcu_assign_pointer(cpu1_dom, NULL);
set_idle(CPU 1)
dom = rcu_dereference(cpu1_dom)
//dec nr_cpus_busy, making it negative
--
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