Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:09:58 +0100 | | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | | Subject | [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed |
| |
Ingo, Peter.
Unless I missed something, with or without these patches the TASK_WAKING logic in do_fork() is very broken.
- do_fork() clears PF_STARTING and then calls wake_up_new_task() which finally does s/WAKING/RUNNING.
But. Nobody can take rq->lock in between. This means a signal from irq (quite possible with CLONE_THREAD) or another rt thread which preempts us can lockup.
- the comment in wake_up_new_task says:
We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning ->cpus_allowed is stable
this is not true. Yes, nobody can take rq->lock _after_ we cleared PF_STARTING, but it is possible that another thread took this lock before and still holds it doing, say, sched_setaffinity().
No?
If yes. I can make a patch, but the question is: what is the point to use TASK_WAKING in fork pathes? Can't sched_fork() set TASK_RUNNING instead? Afaics, TASK_RUNNING can equally protect from premature wakeups but doesn't these PF_STARTING complications.
As for this series. Please review. I don't understand how it is possible to really test these changes.
Dear cpuset developers! Please review ;) If you don't like 6/6, please make a better fix. I tried to make as "simple" patch as possible because I hardly understand cpuset.c, last time I quickly read it a long ago.
Oleg.
|  |