Hi Wanpeng,

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:02:47PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
<snip>
> This patch fix it by following the rules for changing 
> task_struct::cpus_allowed
> w/ both pi_lock and rq->lock are held. 
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <ying.hu...@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng...@hotmail.com>
> ---
>  v1 -> v2:
>   * fix the silly double lock stuff
>   * follow the rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed
> 
>  kernel/sched/core.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b3386c6..8cf87e3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5186,6 +5186,27 @@ static void migrate_tasks(struct rq *dead_rq)
>               BUG_ON(!next);
>               next->sched_class->put_prev_task(rq, next);
>  
> +             /*
> +              * Rules for changing task_struct::cpus_allowed are holding
> +              * both pi_lock and rq->lock, such that holding either
> +              * stabilizes the mask.
> +              *
> +              * Drop rq->lock is not quite as disastrous as it usually is
> +              * because !cpu_active at this point, which means load-balance
> +              * will not interfere.
> +              */
> +             lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +             raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> +             raw_spin_lock(&next->pi_lock);
> +             raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +             lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +             if (!(task_rq(next) == rq && task_on_rq_queued(next))) {
> +                     lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
> +                     raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);

Dropping rq->lock here means we will continue the loop without the
rq->lock, right? But we do have a lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock) in the
beginning of every iteration. So can we release rq->lock here?

Regards,
Boqun

> +                     raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
> +                     continue;
> +             }
> +
>               /* Find suitable destination for @next, with force if needed. */
>               dest_cpu = select_fallback_rq(dead_rq->cpu, next);
>  
> @@ -5196,6 +5217,7 @@ static void migrate_tasks(struct rq *dead_rq)
>                       rq = dead_rq;
>                       raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>               }
> +             raw_spin_unlock(&next->pi_lock);
>       }
>  
>       rq->stop = stop;
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to