[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140804185336.GA21619@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 20:53:36 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, ilya.dryomov@...tank.com,
umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] exit: Desl with nested sleeps
On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Not strictly a bug in the current form,
Yes, this is the false positive.
> but clean it up to enable
> debugging infrastructure and avoid it becoming a bug.
OK, but
> @@ -991,6 +991,8 @@ static int wait_task_zombie(struct wait_
>
> get_task_struct(p);
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +
without a comment it is not clear why do we bother to set RUNNING here.
Perhaps we can add another helper which sets current->state = RUNNING?
Just to self-document the usage.
We can even make it depend on CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP (not sure this
makes sense). But in this case it should set ->task_state_change = 0
and __might_sleep() should take !task_state_change into account.
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