Re: [PATCH] init: Fix race between init and kthreadd -v2
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Jun 28 2010 - 10:19:42 EST
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static __initdata DEFINE_MUTEX(kthreadd_lock);
> + /*
> + * We need to spawn init first so that it obtains pid-1, however
> + * the init task will end up wanting to create kthreads, which
> + * if we schedule it before we create kthreadd, will OOPS.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&kthreadd_lock);
> kernel_thread(kernel_init, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_SIGHAND);
> numa_default_policy();
> pid = kernel_thread(kthreadd, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES);
> rcu_read_lock();
> kthreadd_task = find_task_by_pid_ns(pid, &init_pid_ns);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> + mutex_unlock(&kthreadd_lock);
> unlock_kernel();
>
> /*
> @@ -847,6 +856,13 @@ static noinline int init_post(void)
>
> static int __init kernel_init(void * unused)
> {
> + /*
> + * We spawned this thread while holding this lock, ensure the
> + * locked section in rest_init() is complete before proceeding.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&kthreadd_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kthreadd_lock);
I think you may be using a mutex as a completion in essence. Why not use
completions instead?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/