[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140623142139.GD19860@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:21:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
tkhai@...dex.ru, Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Konstantin Khorenko <khorenko@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Rework check_for_tasks()
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:52:18PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > Then again, I suppose anything without rq->lock can and will miss tasks.
>
> If we use rq->lock it's possible to move check_for_tasks() to kernel/sched/core.c.
>
> And we can leave TASK_RUNNING check for waking tasks. Maybe something like this?
>
> static inline void check_for_tasks(int dead_cpu)
> {
> struct task_struct *g, *p;
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(dead_cpu);
>
> read_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
>
> do_each_thread(g, p) {
> if (!p->on_rq && p->state != TASK_RUNNING)
> continue;
> if (task_cpu(p) != dead_cpu)
> continue;
>
> pr_warn("Task %s (pid=%d) is on cpu %d (state=%ld, flags=%x)\n",
> p->comm, task_pid_nr(p), dead_cpu, p->state, p->flags);
> } while_each_thread(g, p);
>
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)
> read_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> }
>
> It still does not give a 100% guarantee... Should we take p->pi_lock for every task?
seeing how rq->lock nests inside of ->pi_lock that's going to be
somewhat icky.
I think we can live with a false negative, given how much people run
this nonsense it'll trigger eventually.
False positives would be bad though :-)
So I think we can keep your original (lock-free) proposal.
--
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