[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060928170723.c2580a34.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:07:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:43:55 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > What is the locking for these lists? I don't see much in here. It has
> > implications for code which wants to do BUG while holding that lock..
> >
>
> There's no locking. This is a direct copy of the original powerpc
> code. I assume, but haven't checked, that there's a lock to serialize
> module loading/unloading, so the insertion/deletion is all properly
> synchronized.
>
> The only other user is traversal when actually handling a bug; if you're
> very unlucky this could happen while you're actually loading/unloading
> and you would see the list in an inconsistent state. I guess we could
> put a lock there, and trylock it on traversal; at least that would stop
> a concurrent modload/unload from getting in there while we're trying to
> walk the list.
The module_bug_cleanup() code is in a stop_machine_run() callback, so
that's all OK.
I _think_ your module_bug_finalize()'s list_add() could race with another
CPU's BUG_ON(). We can live with that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists