[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160615221604.GC30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:16:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/12] rcu: Make call_rcu_tasks() tolerate
first call with irqs disabled
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:46:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Currently, if the very first call to call_rcu_tasks() has irqs disabled,
> it will create the rcu_tasks_kthread with irqs disabled, which will
> result in a splat in the memory allocator, which kthread_run() invokes
> with the expectation that irqs are enabled.
>
> This commit fixes this problem by deferring kthread creation if called
> with irqs disabled. The first call to call_rcu_tasks() that has irqs
> enabled will create the kthread.
>
> This bug was detected by rcutorture changes that were motivated by
> Iftekhar Ahmed's mutation-testing efforts.
Seems fragile. What if someone manages to only use call_rcu_tasks() with
IRQs disabled?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists