From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.32-rc6] sched, kvm: fix race condition involving sched_in_preempt_notifers
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:09:28 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B138BC8.3090008@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AFEAB6D.60600@redhat.com>
On 11/14/2009 10:06 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 11:55 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Tejun Heo<tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> In finish_task_switch(), fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers() is called
>>> after finish_lock_switch(). However, depending on architecture,
>>> preemption can be enabled after finish_lock_switch() which breaks the
>>> semantics of preempt notifiers. Move it before finish_arch_switch().
>>> This also makes in notifiers symmetric to out notifiers in terms of
>>> locking - now both are called under rq lock.
>>>
>>>
>> I'd like to have Avi's Ack for it,
>
> Acked-by: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
>
>> but we want to do sched.c changes via
>> the scheduler tree.
So, this one was a bust. Given that the only platform which might
have been affected by the original bug is ia64 and it's very unlikely
to happen. I think reverting this from sched/urgent would be the
right thing to do at this point if the branch is headed for another
push to Linus. Avi, what do you think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-30 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-13 9:33 [PATCH 2.6.32-rc6] sched, kvm: fix race condition involving sched_in_preempt_notifers Tejun Heo
2009-11-13 9:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-14 13:06 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-30 9:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-11-30 9:45 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-30 10:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-30 10:11 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-30 11:41 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2009-11-15 10:29 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched, kvm: Fix " tip-bot for Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B138BC8.3090008@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox