[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080828020018.a8ea85f0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:00:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, jurriaan <thunder7@...all.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc4: lots of 'in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0' with
software-raid1
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:27:13 +1000 Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> wrote:
> On Thursday August 28, jens.axboe@...cle.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Cant sleep inside rcu_read_lock(), with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n, at least.
> > >
> > > Dunno if it's legal if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y. Hopefully not - that
> > > would be insane. But I've failed to keep up with rcu goings-on
> > > recently.
> >
> > Doh right, we of course can't block inside a RCU section. Then
> > bitmap.c:write_sb_page() wants fixing:
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > rdev_for_each_rcu(...)
> > md_super_write(...)
> > bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, 1);
> >
> > Neil?
>
>
> Yes......
>
> And not only can't I call bio_alloc inside the rcu_read_lock, I also
> cannot call submit_bio, as that can do a mempool alloc for a request
> structure.
I'm curious about how this happened.
afaict from reading the code, this:
rcu_read_lock();
might_sleep();
rcu_read_unlock();
will warn if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=n but won't warn if
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y. If correct, that's a nasty trap.
Is that what you did?
--
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