Re: Lockdep splat in cpuset code acquiring alloc_lock

[Miao Xie]

CC Oleg
CC Ingo

on 2010-4-15 5:10, Paul Menage wrote:
> Looks like select_fallback_rq() shouldn't be calling
> cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(), which does a task_lock(), which isn't
> IRQ safe. Also, according to its comments that should only be held
> with the cpuset callback_mutex held, which seems unlikely from a
> softirq handler.
> 
> Also, calling cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(p, &p->cpus_allowed) stomps
> on state in p without (AFAICS) synchronization.
> 
> The description of commit e76bd8d9850c2296a7e8e24c9dce9b5e6b55fe2f
> includes the phrase " I'm fairly sure this works, but there might be a
> deadlock hiding" although I think that the lockdep-reported problem is
> different than what Rusty had in mind.

This problem have been fixed by Oleg Nesterov, and the patchset was merged
into tip tree, but it's scheduled for .35 ...

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/15/73

Thanks!
Miao

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/