Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86, tsc: Fix a preemption leak in restore_sched_clock_state() | From | Suresh Siddha <> | Date | Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:01:31 -0700 |
| |
On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 13:32 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > D'0h !! *facepalm* > > Shame on me for not spotting that sooner. > > --- > Subject: x86, tsc: Fix a preemption leak in restore_sched_clock_state() > > A real life genuine preemption leak.. > > Reported-by: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > index 873a321..4496315 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ void restore_sched_clock_state(void) > > local_irq_save(flags); > > - get_cpu_var(cyc2ns_offset) = 0; > + __get_cpu_var(cyc2ns_offset) = 0; > offset = cyc2ns_suspend - sched_clock(); > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
Acked-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Before heading for lunch, I was scratching my head and thinking that I might be doing something wrong with the local_irq_disable() and local_irq_enable() in that patch. But you got it right.
Thanks for looking at this and thanks to Jeff for reporting.
Original patch was marked as stable for 2.6.32+, so we need to make sure that Greg picks up this piece too along with the original patch.
| |