[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140611170705.GA26816@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:07:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: safety of *mutex_unlock() (Was: [BUG] signal: sighand
unprotected when accessed by /proc)
On 06/11, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> @@ -1202,10 +1204,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
> rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
> t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> + init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
can't rcu_init_one() do this? but this is minor,
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
> rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
>
> + /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
> + wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
> +
I must have missed something, I dont understand why we need ->boost_completion.
What if you simply move that rt_mutex into rcu_node ?
Or. Given that rcu_boost_kthread() never exits, it can declare this mutex
on stack and pass the pointer to rcu_boost() ?
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