mirror of
https://github.com/FEX-Emu/linux.git
synced 2024-12-16 05:50:19 +00:00
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: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
ede6f5aea0
commit
da8d5089da
@ -3728,8 +3728,13 @@ redo:
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
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;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user