Re: lockdep trace from posix timers

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:58 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:32 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess we could steal the entire list and requeue it afterwards and
> > > > lift TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME along with it..
> > >
> > > We can't. This can race with exit_task_work(). And this can break
> > > fput(), the task can return to the userspace without __fput().
> >
> > So we could put that spinlock back around cancel and run and leave add
> > lockless. That'd solve my immediate problem but its not something I'm
> > proud of.
> 
> Which problem?

/me doing task_work_add() from under rq->lock..

> We can probably use bit_spin_lock() and avoid ->pi_lock.

tglx will kill us both for even thinking of bit-spinlocks.

> Of course, we can add the new lock into task_struct, but this is not nice.

If we can limit the lock to cancel/run I'm ok.
--
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/