[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231027192026.GG26550@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 21:20:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rcu/tasks: Handle new PF_IDLE semantics
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 04:40:48PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> + /* Has the task been seen voluntarily sleeping? */
> + if (!READ_ONCE(t->on_rq))
> + return false;
> - if (t != current && READ_ONCE(t->on_rq) && !is_idle_task(t)) {
AFAICT this ->on_rq usage is outside of scheduler locks and that
READ_ONCE isn't going to help much.
Obviously a pre-existing issue, and I suppose all it cares about is
seeing a 0 or not, irrespective of the races, but urgh..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists