[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230206170927.9d5afee653dfa0738983dbfa@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 17:09:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list),
Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling
context
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 10:04:47 -0300 Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com> wrote:
> Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
> locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
Well that's regrettable. Especially if non-preempt kernels don't do
this.
Why does PREEMPT_RT do this and can it be fixed?
If it cannot be fixed then we should have a might_sleep() in
__put_task_struct() for all kernel configurations, along with an
apologetic comment explaining why.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists