From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934708AbcIETQk (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:16:40 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60498 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932200AbcIETQi (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:16:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 21:16:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/cputime: Use only pi_lock to protect
 sum_exec_runtime read
Message-ID: <20160905191617.GC3318@worktop.controleur.wifipass.org>
References: <1473066782-19372-1-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com>
 <1473066782-19372-2-git-send-email-sgruszka@redhat.com>
 <20160905141657.GA22190@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160905141657.GA22190@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 04:16:57PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 11:13:01AM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > Currently we protect 64bit sum_exec_runtime read on 32bit cpus using
> > task_rq_lock() which internally takes t->pi_lock and rq->lock. Taking
> > rq->lock is not needed in this case.
> 
> I looked more at kernel/sched/ code and now I'm not sure about this.
> I assumed that update_curr() is called with rq->curr->pi_lock, but
> looks like it can be called with some other task->pi_lock not
> necessary the rq->curr, hence looks that we need rq->lock to assure
> protection

Correct, rq->lock needs be held for this.

update_curr() is called from places like the tick and schedule(),
neither of which hold pi_lock.