Re: [tip:locking/core] sched/core: Fix an SMP ordering race in try_to_wake_up() vs. schedule()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:36:55AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Seems this may be one of those not so theoretical races.  A humongous
> ppc64 box actually managed to run a task on two cores.. briefly.

Cute :-) Why was you running a year old kernel on that box anyway? ;-)

> Stable material methinks.

Yep..

> On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 03:53 -0800, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Commit-ID:  ecf7d01c229d11a44609c0067889372c91fb4f36
> > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/ecf7d01c229d11a44609c0067889372c91fb4f36
> > Author:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > AuthorDate: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:14:13 +0200
> > Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CommitDate: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:26:43 +0100
> > 
> > sched/core: Fix an SMP ordering race in try_to_wake_up() vs. schedule()
> > 
> > Oleg noticed that its possible to falsely observe p->on_cpu == 0 such
> > that we'll prematurely continue with the wakeup and effectively run p on
> > two CPUs at the same time.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]