On 03.03.20 14:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.03.2020 13:30, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -2538,7 +2552,10 @@ static void sched_slave(void)
next = sched_wait_rendezvous_in(prev, &lock, cpu, now);
if ( !next )
+ {
+ rcu_read_unlock(&sched_res_rculock);
return;
+ }
This and ...
@@ -2599,7 +2616,10 @@ static void schedule(void)
cpumask_raise_softirq(mask, SCHED_SLAVE_SOFTIRQ);
next = sched_wait_rendezvous_in(prev, &lock, cpu, now);
if ( !next )
+ {
+ rcu_read_unlock(&sched_res_rculock);
return;
+ }
... this look like independent fixes, as on Arm,
sched_wait_rendezvous_in() can already return NULL. If they get
folded into here, I think the description should clarify that
these are orthogonal to the rest.
Yeah, probably better to split the patch.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
