On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/25, Roman Pen wrote:
>>
>> void wq_worker_waking_up(struct task_struct *task, int cpu)
>> {
>> - struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task);
>> + struct worker *worker;
>> +
>> + if (task->flags & PF_EXITING) {
>> + /*
>> + * Careful here, t->vfork_done is zeroed out for
>> + * almost dead tasks, do not touch kthread_data().
>> + */
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + worker = kthread_data(task);
>>
>> if (!(worker->flags & WORKER_NOT_RUNNING)) {
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->pool->cpu != cpu);
>> @@ -875,9 +885,19 @@ void wq_worker_waking_up(struct task_struct *task, int
>> cpu)
>> */
>> struct task_struct *wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
>> {
>> - struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task), *to_wakeup = NULL;
>> + struct worker *worker, *to_wakeup = NULL;
>> struct worker_pool *pool;
>>
>> + if (task->flags & PF_EXITING) {
>> + /*
>> + * Careful here, t->vfork_done is zeroed out for
>> + * almost dead tasks, do not touch kthread_data().
>> + */
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + worker = kthread_data(task);
>> +
>
> Please see the patch I send a minute ago. With that patch we do not need
> this fix, kthread_data() no longer uses ->vfork_done.
Perfect. Thanks. Oleg, could you please add me to CC when you finally send
a patch.
--
Roman
