[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230619110700.GM4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 13:07:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
Cc: "Christian Brauner (Microsoft)" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/2] kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling
context
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 09:23:20AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> Under PREEMPT_RT, __put_task_struct() indirectly acquires sleeping
> locks. Therefore, it can't be called from an non-preemptible context.
>
> Instead of calling __put_task_struct() directly, we defer it using
> call_rcu(). A more natural approach would use a workqueue, but since
> in PREEMPT_RT, we can't allocate dynamic memory from atomic context,
> the code would become more complex because we would need to put the
> work_struct instance in the task_struct and initialize it when we
> allocate a new task_struct.
>
> Wander Lairson Costa (2):
> kernel/fork: beware of __put_task_struct calling context
> sched: avoid false lockdep splat in put_task_struct()
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists