On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/28, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:08:13AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > > I disagree. It also requires - by virtue of the use of while_each_thread() - > > > that 'g' remains on the list that 't' is walking along. > > > > Doesn't the following code in the loop body deal with this possibilty? > > > > /* Exit if t or g was unhashed during refresh. */ > > if (t->state == TASK_DEAD || g->state == TASK_DEAD) > > goto unlock; > > This code is completely wrong even if while_each_thread() was fine. > > I sent the patch but it was ignored. > > [PATCH] fix the racy check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks()->rcu_lock_break() > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127688790019041 If it helps... Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
