>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, in message
<20080205165936.GA18613@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Walker
<dwalker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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() ..
Here is a new version to address your observation:
-----------------------
we cannot kfree while in_atomic()
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index e6ad493..0978912 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -6226,6 +6226,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct root_domain *rd)
{
unsigned long flags;
const struct sched_class *class;
+ struct root_domain *reap = NULL;
spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
@@ -6241,7 +6242,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct root_domain *rd)
cpu_clear(rq->cpu, old_rd->online);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&old_rd->refcount))
- kfree(old_rd);
+ reap = old_rd;
}
atomic_inc(&rd->refcount);
@@ -6257,6 +6258,10 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct root_domain *rd)
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
+
+ /* Don't try to free the memory while in-atomic() */
+ if (unlikely(reap))
+ kfree(reap);
}
>
> 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
-
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
