[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141002165739.GC10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:57:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>, oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 79 at kernel/sched/core.c:7156
__might_sleep()
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> That's what I meant. And the module load patch too.
Ah, my bad. I thought you were talking about the rfcomm thing.
In any case, if we change wait_woken() like the below, then we can
simplify the loops by taking out their signal_pending checks and using
the wait_woken() return value instead.
---
--- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
@@ -326,8 +326,14 @@ long wait_woken(wait_queue_t *wait, unsi
* woken_wake_function() such that if we observe WQ_FLAG_WOKEN we must
* also observe all state before the wakeup.
*/
- if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN))
- timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
+ if (!(wait->flags & WQ_FLAG_WOKEN)) {
+ if (___wait_is_interruptible(mode)) {
+ if (signal_pending_state(mode, current))
+ timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
+ else
+ timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
+ }
+ }
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
/*
--
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