From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Kirill Tkhai To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Juri Lelli , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <1413311400562533@web30m.yandex.ru> References: <20140516213003.10384.7946.stgit@localhost> <20140519151233.5043b749361e1b384f1e5562@gmail.com> <783871400527879@web2j.yandex.ru> <20140520000026.GD11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1413311400562533@web30m.yandex.ru> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/dl: Fix race between dl_task_timer() and sched_setaffinity() MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1694921400566038@web28j.yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:07:18 +0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 20.05.2014, 09:08, "Kirill Tkhai" : > 20.05.2014, 04:00, "Peter Zijlstra" : > >> �On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:31:19PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: >>> ��@@ -513,9 +513,17 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_timer(struct hrtimer *timer) >>> ��������������������������������������������������������struct sched_dl_entity, >>> ��������������������������������������������������������dl_timer); >>> �����������struct task_struct *p = dl_task_of(dl_se); >>> ��- struct rq *rq = task_rq(p); >>> ��+ struct rq *rq; >>> ��+again: >>> ��+ rq = task_rq(p); >>> �����������raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock); >>> >>> ��+ if (unlikely(rq != task_rq(p))) { >>> ��+ /* Task was moved, retrying. */ >>> ��+ raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock); >>> ��+ goto again; >>> ��+ } >>> ��+ >> �That thing is called: rq = __task_rq_lock(p); > > But p->pi_lock is not held. The problem is __task_rq_lock() has lockdep assert. > Should we change it? Or make something like this? static inline struct rq *_task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p) { lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock); return __task_rq_lock(p); } Thanks!