[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140528065708.GK11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:57:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/numa: Fix use of spin_{un}lock_irq() when
interrupts are disabled
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:02:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> As Peter Zijlstra told me, we have the following path:
>
> do_exit()
> exit_itimers()
> itimer_delete()
> spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->it_lock, &flags);
> timer_delete_hook(timer);
> kc->timer_del(timer) := posix_cpu_timer_del()
> put_task_struct()
> __put_task_struct()
> task_numa_free()
> spin_lock(&grp->lock);
>
>
> Which means that task_numa_free() can be called with interrupts
> disabled, which means that we should not be using spin_lock_irq() but
> spin_lock_irqsave() instead. Otherwise we are enabling interrupts while
> holding an interrupt unsafe lock!
>
Duh, yes. Thanks Steve!
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists