[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191106165437.GX4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 17:54:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aaron.lwe@...il.com, valentin.schneider@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
pauld@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...italocean.com,
naravamudan@...italocean.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
kernel-team@...roid.com, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:51:40PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > + if (!rq->nr_running) {
> > + /*
> > + * Make sure task_on_rq_curr() fails, such that we don't do
> > + * put_prev_task() + set_next_task() on this task again.
> > + */
> > + prev->on_cpu = 2;
> > newidle_balance(rq, rf);
>
> Shouldn't we restore prev->on_cpu = 1 after newidle_balance()? Can't prev
> become pickable again after newidle_balance() releases rq->lock, and we
> take it again, so this on_cpu == 2 never will be cleared?
Indeed so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists