Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 13:54 -0700, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 13:01 -0700, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote: >>> >>>> thanks, your patch looks nice to me. >>>> I had focused setprio, on_rq=0 and running=1 situation, it makes me to >>>> fix these functions. >>>> But one point, I've just noticed. I'm not sure on same situation against >>>> sched_rt. I think the pre_schedule() of rt has chance to drop rq lock. >>>> Is it OK? >>> Ah, you are quite right, that'll teach me to rush out a patch just >>> because dinner is ready :-). >>> >>> How about we submit the following patch for mainline and CC -stable to >>> fix .23 and .24: >> thanks for working, I'm OK, and will test it soon. >> IIRC, it came from the group scheduling, .23 probably doesn't have this issue. > > Might not have this exact race, but I've checked both .23 and .24, both > can unlock the rq before we do ->put_prev_task(), leaving a window for > potential nasties. I'm rather safe than sorry :-) Ah, you're correct. I haven't gotten out from the first situation yet :-) thanks, Hiroshi Shimamoto -- 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
