sched: print_rq(): Don't use tasklist_lock

read_lock_irqsave(tasklist_lock) in print_rq() looks strange. We do
not need to disable irqs, and they are already disabled by the caller.

And afaics this lock buys nothing, we can rely on rcu_read_lock().
In this case it makes sense to also move rcu_read_lock/unlock from
the caller to print_rq().
Signed-off-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140921193341.GA28628@redhat.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

kernel/sched/debug.c

@@ -150,7 +150,6 @@ print_task(struct seq_file *m, struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 static void print_rq(struct seq_file *m, struct rq *rq, int rq_cpu)
 {
 	struct task_struct *g, *p;
-	unsigned long flags;
 
 	SEQ_printf(m,
 	"\nrunnable tasks:\n"
@@ -159,14 +158,14 @@ static void print_rq(struct seq_file *m, struct rq *rq, int rq_cpu)
 	"------------------------------------------------------"
 	"----------------------------------------------------\n");
 
-	read_lock_irqsave(&tasklist_lock, flags);
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_process_thread(g, p) {
 		if (task_cpu(p) != rq_cpu)
 			continue;
 
 		print_task(m, rq, p);
 	}
-	read_unlock_irqrestore(&tasklist_lock, flags);
+	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
 void print_cfs_rq(struct seq_file *m, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
@@ -331,9 +330,7 @@ do {									\
 	print_cfs_stats(m, cpu);
 	print_rt_stats(m, cpu);
 
-	rcu_read_lock();
 	print_rq(m, rq, cpu);
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_debug_lock, flags);
 	SEQ_printf(m, "\n");
 }