On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:02:12PM -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
> <20080205025144.GA31774@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Walker
> <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I get the following when I tried it,
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context bash(5126) at
> > kernel/rtmutex.c:638
> > in_atomic():1 [00000001], irqs_disabled():1
>
> Hi Daniel,
> Can you try this patch and let me know if it fixes your problem?
>
> -----------------------
>
> use rcu for root-domain kfree
>
> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index e6ad493..77e86c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -339,6 +339,7 @@ struct root_domain {
> atomic_t refcount;
> cpumask_t span;
> cpumask_t online;
> + struct rcu_head rcu;
>
> /*
> * The "RT overload" flag: it gets set if a CPU has more than
> @@ -6222,6 +6223,12 @@ sd_parent_degenerate(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_domain *parent)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +/* rcu callback to free a root-domain */
> +static void rq_free_root(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> +{
> + kfree(container_of(rcu, struct root_domain, rcu));
> +}
> +
I looked at the code a bit, and I'm not sure you need this complexity..
Once you have replace the old_rq, there is no reason it needs to
protection of the run queue spinlock .. So you could just move the kfree
down below the spin_unlock_irqrestore() ..
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
