[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207080647.GS6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:06:47 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 78/89] sched/core: Remove the tsk_cpus_allowed() wrapper
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:03:08PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > > +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sparc-us2e-cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sparc-us3-cpufreq.c
>
> > > - cpumask_copy(&cpus_allowed, tsk_cpus_allowed(current));
> > > + cpumask_copy(&cpus_allowed, ¤t->cpus_allowed);
> >
> > Note that all those, and this is where I stopped looking, appear broken vs
> > userspace changing the mask right after.
>
> But these are pre-existing bugs in code twidding ->cpus_allowed, not caused by my
> patch, right?
Yes..
> I.e. my changes made you notice pre-existing bugs.
I think I spotted them when I made the tsk_cpus_allowed() thing as well.
Just wanted to call them out again.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists