linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/rt: Check to push the task away after its affinity was changed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150706124827.GF3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:48:27 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/rt: Check to push the task away after its
 affinity was changed

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 03:21:22PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> @@ -1187,6 +1227,14 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
>  	}
>  
>  	do_set_cpus_allowed(p, new_mask);
> +	/*
> +	 * rq->lock might get released during __balance_callback(),
> +	 * but if there's any successful migrating of @p, task_cpu(p)
> +	 * will obviously be in the new_mask, as p->pi_lock is never
> +	 * released; Thus, subsequent cpumask_test_cpu() is true and
> +	 * will make it return safely in such case.
> +	 */
> +	__balance_callback(rq);
>  
>  	/* Can the task run on the task's current CPU? If so, we're done */
>  	if (cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), new_mask))

This will trigger the lockdep_pin stuff.
--
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/