[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1552923710-30933-1-git-send-email-jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:41:50 -0400
From: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Vineeth Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access
The case where we try to acquire the lock on 2 runqueues belonging to 2
different cores requires the rq_lockp wrapper as well otherwise we
frequently deadlock in there.
This fixes the crash reported in
1552577311-8218-1-git-send-email-jdesfossez@...italocean.com
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 76fee56..71bb71f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -2078,7 +2078,7 @@ static inline void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2)
raw_spin_lock(rq_lockp(rq1));
__acquire(rq2->lock); /* Fake it out ;) */
} else {
- if (rq1 < rq2) {
+ if (rq_lockp(rq1) < rq_lockp(rq2)) {
raw_spin_lock(rq_lockp(rq1));
raw_spin_lock_nested(rq_lockp(rq2), SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
} else {
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists