[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081117161617.GF12081@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:16:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softirq: Use local_irq_save() in local_bh_enable()
* Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> wrote:
> This report: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122599341430090&w=2
> shows local_bh_enable() is used in the wrong context (irqs
> disabled). It happens when a usual network receive path is called by
> netconsole, which simply turns off irqs around this all. Probably
> this is wrong, but it worked like this long time, and it's not
> trivial to fix this.
>
> Anyway, a commit 0f476b6d91a1395bda6464e653ce66ea9bea7167 "softirq:
> remove irqs_disabled warning from local_bh_enable" can break things
> after changing from local_irq_save() to local_irq_disable(). Before
> this commit there was only a warning, now a lockup is possible, so
> it could be treated as a regression. This patch reverts the change
> in irqs.
hm, but calling local_bh_enable() with hardirqs off is a bug. It might
be a long-standing bug, but it can cause lockups even with that change
reverted: when we process softirqs in local_bh_enable(). So why not
fix the bug instead?
Ingo
--
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