[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140903094538.GF4783@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:45:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kautuk Consul <consul.kautuk@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
Guillaume Morin <guillaume@...infr.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] do_exit(): Solve possibility of BUG() due to race
with try_to_wake_up()
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:04:36PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 25.08.2014, 20:01, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>:
> > Peter, do you remember another problem with TASK_DEAD we discussed recently?
> > (prev_state == TASK_DEAD detection in finish_task_switch() still looks racy).
>
> One more problem with task_dead just to mention it here.
>
> Below is racy with the change of sched_class:
>
> if (prev->sched_class->task_dead)
> prev->sched_class->task_dead(prev);
>
> switched_from_dl() does not cancel running timers.
Well, it does a try_to_cancel() but yes, that can fail. Now I suspect
you cannot actually do hrtimer_cancel() from switched_from because its
called with locks held and the timer function will also try and acquire
those locks.
But yes, that appears to be an actual problem indeed.
--
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