[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241025204802.GA24112@maniforge>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:48:02 -0500
From: David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: sched-ext@...a.com, kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scx: Fix raciness in scx_ops_bypass()
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:43:53AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This looks great overall. One nit below.
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 03:39:29PM -0500, David Vernet wrote:
> ...
> > static void scx_ops_bypass(bool bypass)
> > {
> > - int depth, cpu;
> > + int cpu;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&__scx_ops_bypass_lock, flags);
> > if (bypass) {
> > - depth = atomic_inc_return(&scx_ops_bypass_depth);
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(depth <= 0);
> > - if (depth != 1)
> > - return;
> > + scx_ops_bypass_depth++;
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(scx_ops_bypass_depth <= 0);
> > + if (scx_ops_bypass_depth != 1)
> > + goto unlock;
> > } else {
> > - depth = atomic_dec_return(&scx_ops_bypass_depth);
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(depth < 0);
> > - if (depth != 0)
> > - return;
> > + scx_ops_bypass_depth--;
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(scx_ops_bypass_depth < 0);
> > + if (scx_ops_bypass_depth != 0)
> > + goto unlock;
>
> Now that we know irq is disabled in the body, can you also please change
> rq_lock_irqsave() to rq_lock?
Ah good point, will send v3 shortly.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists