On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Commit-ID: 093e5840ae76f1082633503964d035f40ed0216d
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/093e5840ae76f1082633503964d035f40ed0216d
> Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:17:10 +0100
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CommitDate: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:01:07 +0100
>
> sched/core: Reset task's lockless wake-queues on fork()
>
> In the following commit:
>
> 7675104990ed ("sched: Implement lockless wake-queues")
>
> we gained lockless wake-queues.
>
> The -RT kernel managed to lockup itself with those. There could be multiple
> attempts for task X to enqueue it for a wakeup _even_ if task X is already
> running.
>
> The reason is that task X could be runnable but not yet on CPU. The the
> task performing the wakeup did not leave the CPU it could performe
> multiple wakeups.
>
> With the proper timming task X could be running and enqueued for a
> wakeup. If this happens while X is performing a fork() then its its
> child will have a !NULL `wake_q` member copied.
>
> This is not a problem as long as the child task does not participate in
> lockless wakeups :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 7675104990ed ("sched: Implement lockless wake-queues")
Shouldn't that go into stable?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|