Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1235205
| From | Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks |
| Date | 2015-09-29 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qe4Hv-1BQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qdZHQ-2IS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qdZHQ-2IS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:28:28 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> When we warn about a preempt_count leak; reset the preempt_count to
> the known good value such that the problem does not ripple forward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> kernel/exit.c | 4 +++-
> kernel/sched/core.c | 4 +++-
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/exit.c
> +++ b/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -706,10 +706,12 @@ void do_exit(long code)
> smp_mb();
> raw_spin_unlock_wait(&tsk->pi_lock);
>
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic()))
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
> pr_info("note: %s[%d] exited with preempt_count %d\n",
> current->comm, task_pid_nr(current),
> preempt_count());
> + preempt_count_set(PREEMPT_ENABLED);
> + }
Looks good.
>
> /* sync mm's RSS info before statistics gathering */
> if (tsk->mm)
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2960,8 +2960,10 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct
> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path. Otherwise whine
> * if we are scheduling when we should not.
> */
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && prev->state != TASK_DEAD))
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && prev->state != TASK_DEAD)) {
> __schedule_bug(prev);
> + preempt_count_set(PREEMPT_DISABLED);
> + }
Of course, if this was not a preemption leak, but something that called
schedule within a preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() section, when it
returns, preemption will be enabled, right?
-- Steve
> rcu_sleep_check();
>
> profile_hit(SCHED_PROFILING, __builtin_return_address(0));
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-29 11:50 +0200
[tip:sched/core] sched/core: Robustify preemption leak checks tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2015-09-29 12:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 15:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-29 16:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 16:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2015-09-29 17:10 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/11] sched: Robustify preemption leak checks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-29 17:30 +0200
csiph-web