[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170213230055.GN16086@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 08:00:55 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
neilb@...e.de, nab@...ux-iscsi.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
ying.huang@...el.com, shli@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] sched: Don't reinvent the wheel but use existing
llist API
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 04:52:30PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 04:21:08PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > + llist_for_each_entry(p, llist, wake_entry)
> > > + ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, p->sched_remote_wakeup ? WF_MIGRATED : 0, &rf);
> >
> > I think this suffers the exact same problem the others did. After
> > ttwu_do_activate() the llist entry can be reused, so doing list_next()
> > after it is flaky.
>
> llist_for_each_entry_safe() should work, I guess.
Yes. I will fix it. Thank you.
>
> Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists