[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141110160148.GZ10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:01:48 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, 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 Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:48:28AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> 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.
confused... how can we lock up there. We should not be holding _any_
lock there.
That a different problem that the originally reported one.
--
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