Ingo, Peter.
Unless I missed something, with or without these patches the TASK_WAKING
logic in do_fork() is very broken.
- do_fork() clears PF_STARTING and then calls wake_up_new_task()
which finally does s/WAKING/RUNNING.
But. Nobody can take rq->lock in between. This means a signal
from irq (quite possible with CLONE_THREAD) or another rt
thread which preempts us can lockup.
- the comment in wake_up_new_task says:
We still have TASK_WAKING but PF_STARTING is gone now, meaning
->cpus_allowed is stable
this is not true. Yes, nobody can take rq->lock _after_ we cleared
PF_STARTING, but it is possible that another thread took this lock
before and still holds it doing, say, sched_setaffinity().
No?
If yes. I can make a patch, but the question is: what is the point to use
TASK_WAKING in fork pathes? Can't sched_fork() set TASK_RUNNING instead?
Afaics, TASK_RUNNING can equally protect from premature wakeups but doesn't
these PF_STARTING complications.
As for this series. Please review. I don't understand how it is possible
to really test these changes.
Dear cpuset developers! Please review ;) If you don't like 6/6, please make
a better fix. I tried to make as "simple" patch as possible because I hardly
understand cpuset.c, last time I quickly read it a long ago.
Oleg.
--
