[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090901160043.GA6708@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:00:44 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: arjan@...radead.org, jeremy@...p.org, mschmidt@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tj@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthreads: Fix startup synchronization boot crash
On 09/01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > But I must admit, now I don't understand what happens,
> >
> > The modification of that variable is protected by the BKL, but
> > the _ordering_ of the initial task (which becomes the idle
> > thread of CPU0) and the init task (which is spawned by the
> > initial task) is not synchronized.
> >
> > So we can occasionally end up init running sooner than
> > rest_init()
> >
> > How? rest_init() can't be preempted and it holds BKL. And
> > kernel_init() takes BKL before anything else. Confused...
>
> it cannot be preempted but it can schedule anywhere - and the BKL
> will be dropped silently.
>
> This is one of the biggest dangers of the BKL
Yes I see. But rest_init() runs under preempt_disable(). If it was
rescheduled, schedule_debug() should complain. No?
Oleg.
--
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