[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150123225411.GZ9719@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 14:54:11 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"davej@...emonkey.org.uk >> Dave Jones" <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>
Subject: Re: rcu, sched: WARNING: CPU: 30 PID: 23771 at
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:337 rcu_read_unlock_special+0x369/0x550()
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:51:52PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 04:36 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > index 8669de884445..ec99dc16aa38 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > special = t->rcu_read_unlock_special;
> > if (special.b.need_qs) {
> > rcu_preempt_qs();
> > + t->rcu_read_unlock_special.need_qs = false;
>
> It didn't compile, I've used:
>
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = false;
Apologies, I should have marked it "untested". Good show on finding
the correct fix.
But does your fixed version help? ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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