On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 14:15 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
quoted text
> Add an rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock() pair to protect a fork-time
> cgroup access.  This seems likely to be a false positive.
> 
> Located by: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@texware.it>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> 
>  sched.c |    2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 9ab3cd7..d4bb5e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2621,7 +2621,9 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, int clone_flags)
>  	if (p->sched_class->task_fork)
>  		p->sched_class->task_fork(p);
>  
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  	set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
>  	if (likely(sched_info_on()))

What got accessed? This patch just looks wrong.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/