[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5460DE4C.6050306@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:48:28 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in task_numa_assign()
On 11/10/2014 05:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1268,6 +1268,13 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct tas
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dst_rq->lock);
>
> /*
> + * Because we have preemption enabled we can get migrated around and
> + * end try selecting ourselves (current == env->p) as a swap candidate.
> + */
> + if (cur == env->p)
> + goto unlock;
This is too late though, because currently the lockup happens couple of lines
above that at:
raw_spin_lock_irq(&dst_rq->lock); <=== here
cur = dst_rq->curr;
Which got me a bit stuck trying to use your old patch since we can't access '->curr'
without locking dst_rq, but locking dst_rq is causing a lockup.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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