On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 07:58:16AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Not just this, continuing further we have more trouble:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> CPU0 (attach_task T1 to CS2) CPU1 (T1 is exiting)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> synchronize_rcu()
> atomic_dec(&CS1->count);
> [CS1->count = 0]
>
> if atomic_dec_and_test(&oldcs->count))
> [CS1->count = -1]
>
>
>
> We now have CS1->count negative. Is that good? I am uncomfortable ..
>
> We need a task_lock() in cpuset_exit to avoid this race.
2nd race is tricky. We probably need to do this to avoid it:
task_lock(tsk);
/* Check if tsk->cpuset is still same. We may have raced with
* cpuset_exit changing tsk->cpuset again under our feet.
*/
if (tsk->cpuset == cs && atomic_dec_and_test(&oldcs->count)) {
task_unlock(tsk);
check_for_release(oldcs, ppathbuf);
goto done;
}
task_unlock(tsk);
done:
return 0;
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
