[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51B14472.60904@kylinos.com.cn>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:24:50 +0800
From: "weiqi@...inos.com.cn" <weiqi@...inos.com.cn>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: "weiqi@...inos.com.cn" <weiqi@...inos.com.cn>,
torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: race condition in schedule_on_each_cpu()
In the previous message,You mentioned:
>> by the way, I'm wondering about what's the race condition before
which doesn't exist now
> Before the commit you originally quoted, the calling thread could be
preempted and migrated to another CPU before get_online_cpus() thus
ending up executing the function twice on the new cpu but skipping the
old one.
does this situation will happen in "Full preemption" config, on 3.0.30-rt50?
于 2013年06月07日 09:34, weiqi@...inos.com.cn 写道:
> it's preemption mode related ,
>
> on the 3.0.30-rt50, only config kernel with highest preemption
> level (Fully Preemptible Kernel (RT)) in cpu preemption model
> will cause problem
>
> and even i use the "Preemptible Kernel" or "Preemptible Kernel
> (Low-Latency Desktop)" the problem would not happen..
>
>
> > I looked through the logs but the only worker depletion related
> patches which pop up are around CPU hotplugs, so I don't think they
> apply here. If the problem is relatively easy to reproduce && you
> can't move onto a newer kernel, I'm afraid bisection probably is the
> best option. Thanks!
>
--
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