On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:08:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > #define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(rq, cfs_rq) \
> > - list_for_each_entry(cfs_rq, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list, leaf_cfs_rq_list)
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(cfs_rq, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list, leaf_cfs_rq_list)
> >
> > /* Do the two (enqueued) entities belong to the same group ? */
> > static inline int
> > @@ -1126,7 +1126,10 @@ static void print_cfs_stats(struct seq_f
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, &cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs);
> > #endif
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq)
> > print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, cfs_rq);
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> hm, why is this a cleanup?
Sorry for the wrong subject. It was supposed to include the above bug fix,
related to how we walk the task group list.
Thinking abt it now, I realize that print_cfs_rq() can potentially
sleep and hence it cannot be surrounded by rcu_read_lock()/unlock().
And as Dipankar just pointed me, sched_create/destroy_group aren't
serialized at all currently, so we need a mutex to protect them. The
same mutex can be then used when walking the list in print_cfs_stats() ..
Will send update patches soon ..
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
