[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160311121950.GZ6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:19:50 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
david.vrabel@...rix.com, mingo@...hat.com,
Douglas_Warzecha@...l.com, pali.rohar@...il.com, jdelvare@...e.com,
linux@...ck-us.net, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] sched: add function to execute a function
synchronously on a physical cpu
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:59:30PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> +int call_sync_on_phys_cpu(unsigned cpu, int (*func)(void *), void *par)
> +{
> + cpumask_var_t old_mask;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_mask, GFP_KERNEL))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cpumask_copy(old_mask, ¤t->cpus_allowed);
> + ret = set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(cpu));
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
So what happens if someone does sched_setaffinity() right about here?
> +
> + ret = func(par);
> +
> + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, old_mask);
> +
> +out:
> + free_cpumask_var(old_mask);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_sync_on_phys_cpu);
This is disgusting, and you're adding this to !Xen kernels too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists