On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:23:37PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> [PATCH]sched: Use dl_bw_of() under preempt_disable()
>
> rq->rd is freed using call_rcu_sched(), so rcu_read_lock() to access it
> is not enough. We should use either rcu_read_lock_sched() or
> preempt_disable().
>
> We choose preem
В Пн, 29/09/2014 в 19:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:54:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:43:47PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > Thanks for your report. It looks like your fix is not enough, because
> > > we check for rcu_read_lock_sche
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:54:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:43:47PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > Thanks for your report. It looks like your fix is not enough, because
> > we check for rcu_read_lock_sched_held() in dl_bw_of(). It still warns
> > even if rcu_read_lo
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:43:47PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Thanks for your report. It looks like your fix is not enough, because
> we check for rcu_read_lock_sched_held() in dl_bw_of(). It still warns
> even if rcu_read_lock() is held.
>
> I used rcu_read_lock_sched_held() because we free roo
Hi, Sasha,
В Пн, 29/09/2014 в 11:19 -0400, Sasha Levin пишет:
> Commit "sched: Use dl_bw_of() under RCU read lock" has missed a call
> to dl_bw_of(), which has now started showing warnings:
>
> [ 820.960972] ===
> [ 820.961663] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [ 82
5 matches
Mail list logo