Commit da8d5089 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

sched: fix possible recursive rq->lock

Vaidyanathan Srinivasan reported:

 > =============================================
 > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
 > 2.6.28-autotest-tip-sv #1
 > ---------------------------------------------
 > klogd/5062 is trying to acquire lock:
 >  (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff8022aca2>] task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e
 >
 > but task is already holding lock:
 >  (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff805f7354>] schedule+0x158/0xa31

With sched_mc at 2. (it is default-off)

Strictly speaking we'll not deadlock, because ttwu will not be able to
place the migration task on our rq, but since the code can deal with
both rqs getting unlocked, this seems the easiest way out.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent ede6f5ae
......@@ -3728,8 +3728,13 @@ load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd,
}
double_unlock_balance(this_rq, busiest);
/*
* Should not call ttwu while holding a rq->lock
*/
spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
if (active_balance)
wake_up_process(busiest->migration_thread);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
} else
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment