[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081119110748.GA7557@ff.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:07:48 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softirq: Fix warnings triggered by netconsole
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:32:24AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Consider netconsole case as special in local_bh_enable()/_disable().
> > This patch skips in_irq() and irqs_disabled() warnings for NETPOLL
> > configs when it's safe wrt. do_softirq().
> >
> > Reported-by: Ferenc Wagner <wferi@...f.hu>
> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
> > ---
> > [apply on top of my first softirq patch in this thread]
> >
> > diff -Nurp a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > --- a/kernel/softirq.c 2008-11-19 07:33:23.000000000 +0000
> > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c 2008-11-19 07:26:28.000000000 +0000
> > @@ -76,7 +76,12 @@ static void __local_bh_disable(unsigned
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NETPOLL
> > + if (!softirq_count())
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());
> > +#else
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());
> > +#endif
> >
> > raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> > add_preempt_count(SOFTIRQ_OFFSET);
> > @@ -138,7 +143,16 @@ static inline void _local_bh_enable_ip(u
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > unsigned long flags;
> > #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NETPOLL
> > + /*
> > + * Special-case - netconsole runs network code with all interrupts
> > + * disabled. Warn only if it can be really dangerous:
> > + */
> > + if (softirq_count() == SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq() || irqs_disabled());
> > +#else
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq() || irqs_disabled());
> > +#endif
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > #endif
>
> this is a very ugly patch, not really acceptable.
Well, it's a question of taste. Anyway, this patch is only about
warnings, so no big deal. But I still think the first patch reverting
local_irq_save() -> local_irq_disable() change should be applied.
There is no need to give users any additional lockups risk while we
know there are unsolved issues.
BTW, the current situation with: local_irq_disable() in
_local_bh_enable() and local_irq_save() in do_softirq() doesn't make
much sense. I know, there is local_irq_disable() in __do_softirq()
again, but it can be often skipped on this path because of
in_interrupt() test (and there is soon this local_irq_restore()
in do_softirq()).
Jarek P.
--
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